Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[scourge99]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Well what is your definition of an atheist? Apparently Neil's definition is "someone who doesn't believe in gods and is also active about that belief in a group, gets involved in public politics about it, etc".

Its one of the stupider definitions I've heard.

Most atheists i know define atheist as "someone who doesn't believe in gods". Where a god is usually defined as something like a powerful, conscious being, who is usually the creator of the universe.

Thats it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing about being active or joining a group, or caring about the separation of church and state, etc.

When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I've tried before to get you to clearly explain what the hell you actually mean by such terms as "spiritual" and "the true essence of reality", etc. But you refuse. Instead you obfuscate, play word games, and perform semantic acrobatics. Its obscurantism and i discourage anyone from wasting their time trying to actually get you to say something meaningful about such terms.

This is a reoccurring pattern many commenters have noticed about self-proclaimed mystics/spiritualists/panentheists. (are you a deepak chopra fan by chance? He's a master at spewing unintelligible but superficially deep nonsense.)


So we don't even need to bother debating that stuff because we already know how it ends. So, if decide to post some gobbledygook/vague/obscure nonsense in response I'll simply point it out. And we'll leave it at that.

[scourge99]

For anyone unfamiliar with recognizing gobbledygook, here is a link that can help you learn to recognize it: www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Some examples:

"The soul is in the midst of ephemeral
marvel"

"The invisible is reborn in unique
choices"

"Qualia imparts reality to the light of
energy"

[Divine Insight]

Well what is your definition of an atheist? Apparently Neil's definition is "someone who doesn't believe in gods and is also active about that belief in a group, gets involved in public politics about it, etc".

Its one of the stupider definitions I've heard.

Tell that to the President of American Atheists.

Niel Tyson is right in his observation that atheism is a "movement" in America.

And if you believe that's a stupid definition then you are in denial of the real world and social structures.

While it is true that several scientists have suggested that scientists should distance themselves from the term "atheism" and instead speak in terms of reason or rational. So perhaps what we need is a new group called "American Rationalists". But what we actually see in practice is "American Atheists" using science as their crutch to support atheistic views.

And that truly is stupid because Science doesn't support atheism anyway. Science says nothing about the true nature of reality. It can't, it's nowhere near mature enough yet to tackle those kinds of questions.

I've tried before to get you to clearly explain what the hell you actually mean by such terms as "spiritual" and "the true essence of reality", etc. But you refuse. Instead you obfuscate, play word games, and perform semantic acrobatics. Its obscurantism and i discourage anyone from wasting their time trying to actually get you to say something meaningful about such terms.

Your inability to comprehend my position on things does not make my position obscure. On the contrary, I'm certain that you don't understand my position because my position is indeed perfectly valid from every rational point of view, and even from a scientific point of view. So your views on my position are clearly nothing other than misunderstanding on your part.

I'm not claiming that any spirituality actually exists. My position is purely one of plausibility arguments. And I do indeed have very sound plausibility arguments. For you to claim otherwise is a false claim on your behalf.

This is a reoccurring pattern many commenters have noticed about self-proclaimed mystics/spiritualists/panentheists. (are you a deepak chopra fan by chance? He's a master at spewing unintelligible but superficially deep nonsense.)

I admire what Deepak stands for and is trying to do. I can see the man truly cares about people and humanity. I do not agree with everything Deepak says, and in fact, there are some things he says that I totally disagree with. But overall, I respect his views, yes this is true.

The fact that you don't think much of Deepak Chopra doesn't surprise me at all.

So we don't even need to bother debating that stuff because we already know how it ends. So, if decide to post some gobbledygook/vague/obscure nonsense in response I'll simply point it out. And we'll leave it at that.

I have rock solid rational reasons to support all my views. All my views are indeed scientifically plausible. In fact, I'm certain that they are every bit as plausible as your views.

You can't explain to me what it is that is actually having an experience of conscious awareness without using gobbledygook/vague/obscure nonsense either.

If you think you have the mystery of reality down pat, then there is only one person you are fooling. And it's not me.

[Philbert]

So perhaps what we need is a new group called "American Rationalists".

There is a site called Project Reason, started by Sam Harris I believe.

http://www.project-reason.org/

Things are pretty slow there, and I saw no evidence of Harris in attendance.

I agree that celebrating and exploring reason would be a more interesting and productive approach than an exclusive focus on rejecting religion, a process which appears to be primarily emotional in nature.

[Divine Insight]

So perhaps what we need is a new group called "American Rationalists".

There is a site called Project Reason, started by Sam Harris I believe.

http://www.project-reason.org/

Things are pretty slow there, and I saw no evidence of Harris in attendance.

I agree that celebrating and exploring reason would be a more interesting and productive approach than an exclusive focus on rejecting religion, a process which appears to be primarily emotional in nature.

Yes I saw a lecture by Sam Harris where he rejected the label of atheism as being bad label and unworthy of scientists to bother with.

He even described it by saying that "Atheism" is akin to a religious person drawing the outline of a dead body on the payment and then we go and lay in that outline to serve their bidding.

So he clearly views the term "atheism" as a form of jumping through hoops for religious people. He said in that lecture that he was dead set against using this term. But that was quite a few years ago, and since that time he seems to have given in more to the reality that religious people are going to force anyone who disagrees with them into their dead-man outline of "atheism".

The religious people love the term. It allows them to box their opponents into a group and then just bash the group which the religious people ultimately DEFINE.

I personally don't fight this term when it comes to the Abrahamic religions. I just make sure that they understand that those are the people who have created that box. I am an "atheist" with respect to those absurd religions.

But in terms of reality in general, I'm totally open to spiritual concepts.

So the box created by the Abrahamic theists backfires on them in my case. I simply agree with them wholeheartedly. With respect to these absurd religions, yes I most certainly am an atheist.

By the way, thanks for the line to Project Reason. They have a forum there and I might post some views on this over there.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

I don't really agree with his definition of Atheism. However, there is a movement to spread secularism and within that there are those deeply opposed to religion. There is no statistical data to determine the minority or majority of atheists who share this position. not that it would matter either way.

Neil deGrasse Tyson would limit his audience if he took that position so it's in his best interest to remain neutral on the matter.

that being said science has nothing to do with the super natural it is neutral on the matter. It can test claims of religion and therefore prove or disprove to an extent those claims. Whether this makes you more or less inclined to believe in those claims is purely on how you interpret the evidence and the message.

logic reason and philosophy on the other hand can address theistic issues.

[JohnA]

Well what is your definition of an atheist? Apparently Neil's definition is "someone who doesn't believe in gods and is also active about that belief in a group, gets involved in public politics about it, etc".

Its one of the stupider definitions I've heard.

Tell that to the President of American Atheists.

Niel Tyson is right in his observation that atheism is a "movement" in America.

And if you believe that's a stupid definition then you are in denial of the real world and social structures.

While it is true that several scientists have suggested that scientists should distance themselves from the term "atheism" and instead speak in terms of reason or rational. So perhaps what we need is a new group called "American Rationalists". But what we actually see in practice is "American Atheists" using science as their crutch to support atheistic views.

And that truly is stupid because Science doesn't support atheism anyway. Science says nothing about the true nature of reality. It can't, it's nowhere near mature enough yet to tackle those kinds of questions.

I've tried before to get you to clearly explain what the hell you actually mean by such terms as "spiritual" and "the true essence of reality", etc. But you refuse. Instead you obfuscate, play word games, and perform semantic acrobatics. Its obscurantism and i discourage anyone from wasting their time trying to actually get you to say something meaningful about such terms.

Your inability to comprehend my position on things does not make my position obscure. On the contrary, I'm certain that you don't understand my position because my position is indeed perfectly valid from every rational point of view, and even from a scientific point of view. So your views on my position are clearly nothing other than misunderstanding on your part.

I'm not claiming that any spirituality actually exists. My position is purely one of plausibility arguments. And I do indeed have very sound plausibility arguments. For you to claim otherwise is a false claim on your behalf.

This is a reoccurring pattern many commenters have noticed about self-proclaimed mystics/spiritualists/panentheists. (are you a deepak chopra fan by chance? He's a master at spewing unintelligible but superficially deep nonsense.)

I admire what Deepak stands for and is trying to do. I can see the man truly cares about people and humanity. I do not agree with everything Deepak says, and in fact, there are some things he says that I totally disagree with. But overall, I respect his views, yes this is true.

The fact that you don't think much of Deepak Chopra doesn't surprise me at all.

So we don't even need to bother debating that stuff because we already know how it ends. So, if decide to post some gobbledygook/vague/obscure nonsense in response I'll simply point it out. And we'll leave it at that.

I have rock solid rational reasons to support all my views. All my views are indeed scientifically plausible. In fact, I'm certain that they are every bit as plausible as your views.

You can't explain to me what it is that is actually having an experience of conscious awareness without using gobbledygook/vague/obscure nonsense either.

If you think you have the mystery of reality down pat, then there is only one person you are fooling. And it's not me.

Am sorry. You are just wrong.

Atheist in the USA has a bad connotation.

So, people prefer agnostic, like Neil, to defer judgement. [in their own country, and you call this democracy?]

Atheism and science are not connected, but and understanding of science leads to being a full atheist, I would argue that some form of politics leads to theism as well.

As Seneca (some deceased old Roman philosopher said: before they even penned or thought of Christianity: think about that it is long long ago in an ancient time) said:
"Religion is true to the common man, false to the wise man and useful to the politician".
That was probably after the con man sold to the fool to conceive religion.

Am sure some of you are bright enough to spot the irony that we are still talking about religion (a rejection of evidence of faith). And yes, you are religious if you hold a belief in ANY form of deity (personal or made up, whateva)

[scourge99]

Well what is your definition of an atheist? Apparently Neil's definition is "someone who doesn't believe in gods and is also active about that belief in a group, gets involved in public politics about it, etc".

Its one of the stupider definitions I've heard.

Tell that to the President of American Atheists.

Why in the world should i or any atheist care what the president of a club thinks?

Do mormons care what the pope says about god? Or do catholics care about what the dali lama says about spirituality? No.

And unlike the pope, the president of American atheists has no authority over atheists. He's just a guy who got elected to the head of his club.


Its comical i even have to address this silly comment of yours.

Niel Tyson is right in his observation that atheism is a "movement" in America.

Only if you play word games and use nonstandard definitions of "atheism".

Atheism is defined in every dictionary (which describe common usage) as something like "lack of belief in god" or "the belief that there is no god". Nothing about a movement, or being politically active, or any other such nonsense you dishonestly attempt to add to the definition to make an asinine talking point.

And if you believe that's a stupid definition then you are in denial of the real world and social structures.

Oh, how quaint.

Get over your smug sense of "spiritual" superiority and stop making patently dishonest arguments.

While it is true that several scientists have suggested that scientists should distance themselves from the term "atheism" and instead speak in terms of reason or rational.

I don't disagree that labeling one's self as an atheist tends to bring baggage with it when dealing with halfwits and the ignorant. Usually its only by uninformed theists who think such silly things as "atheists are rebelling against god" or "atheists have faith".

Personally, in real life as well, that's why i don't label myself an atheist. At least until i know I'm dealing with someone who is more than superficially familiar with religion and irreligion. That is, to the uninformed and ignoramuses (in regards to religion) of the world, i tell them I'm agnostic. To the others I'm an atheist.

Its a matter of convenience, not because I agree with the strange and silly definitions of the ignorant.

So perhaps what we need is a new group called "American Rationalists".

Or brites, or secularists, or agnostic, or non-theists, or ignostics, or blah, blah blah... It seems every atheist (person who doesn't believe in gods) who doesn't like being labeled "atheist" has to go through this same dumb process of inventing some new definition for themselves. Its becoming a cliché.

But what we actually see in practice is "American Atheists" using science as their crutch to support atheistic views.

Once again, i don't care what some club or their president think. Why should I? They don't have any authority and don't represent atheists in general anymore than the pope, Joseph Smith, or the Dalai Lama represents or is an authority over all theists. Same goes for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et all (One difference is that Sam Harris and Dawkins don't think they speak for all atheists).

Science says nothing about the true nature of reality.

"the true nature of reality". A perfect example of obscurantism. An obscure and vague term used to baffle readers with bullpoop.

I've tried before to get you to clearly explain what the hell you actually mean by such terms as "spiritual" and "the true essence of reality", etc. But you refuse. Instead you obfuscate, play word games, and perform semantic acrobatics. Its obscurantism and i discourage anyone from wasting their time trying to actually get you to say something meaningful about such terms.

Your inability to comprehend my position on things does not make my position obscure.

When you intentionally obfuscate , use non standard definitions, and otherwise use loaded and ambiguous terminology, then YES, you are engaging in obscurantism. I'm sorry you don't like being called out on it. But perhaps you can stop engaging in it and simply say what you mean using common definitions, and accurate and clear descriptions.

Until then, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. And any vague and obscure terminology will immediately be viewed as more obscurantism; you are a repeat offender and will get treated as such.

... my position is indeed perfectly valid from every rational point of view, and even from a scientific point of view.

You repeat this same canard in many of your threads. Its almost like a ritual. That if you simply assert something and repeat it enough times then it must be true or others will blindly accept it.

So your views on my position are clearly nothing other than misunderstanding on your part.

You engage in obscurantism. Obscurantists are intellectually vacuous. This vacuousness is hidden behind clouded, vague, or obtuse statements while assuring their readers that they have elucidated something profound and meaningful. Its not necessarily intentional but it can be.

Why can't you just say what you mean? Why do you have to wrap things up in vague and obscure terms like "true nature of reality"?

Are you honestly oblivious to this?

I'm not claiming that any spirituality actually exists.

What do you mean by "spirituality "? What does it even mean to say "spirituality actually exists" or "spirituality doesn’t actually exist"?

My position is purely one of plausibility arguments.

Plausibility in what sense? That you can imagine something in your head therefore its plausible? What exactly do you mean by plausible?

And I do indeed have very sound plausibility arguments.

Why are you making this assertion? Is this another example of this strange mental exercise where if you repeat something enough times you'll believe it? Am supposed to just accept your assertion because you say it?

Instead of wasting everyone's time making such assertions, why didn't you spend the time explaining or supporting your assertion?

So we don't even need to bother debating that stuff because we already know how it ends. So, if decide to post some gobbledygook/vague/obscure nonsense in response I'll simply point it out. And we'll leave it at that.

I have rock solid rational reasons to support all my views. All my views are indeed scientifically plausible. In fact, I'm certain that they are every bit as plausible as your views.

More examples of this strange self confidence and arguments by assertions. Do you have anything of substance to add?

You can't explain to me what it is that is actually having an experience of conscious awareness without using gobbledygook/vague/obscure nonsense either.

How would you know? You've never asked. And if anything i said was unclear I'd try to be more accurate and precise. I wouldn't try to befuddle you with bullpoop by using terms and phrases like "the true nature of reality" or "the universe is consciousness".

[instantc]

You can't explain to me what it is that is actually having an experience of conscious awareness without using gobbledygook/vague/obscure nonsense either.

How would you know? You've never asked. And if anything i said was unclear I'd try to be more accurate and precise. I wouldn't try to befuddle you with bullpoop by using terms and phrases like "the true nature of reality" or "the universe is consciousness".

Instead you say that consciousness emerges from the brain activity, which is clear and causes the reader immediately understand the deepest mysteries of the mind in great detail. I can provide a physical explanation of Jesus's miracles as well. You see, the wine just simply emerged from the water molecules.