Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocating...

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocating...

Post #1

Post by Ooberman »

Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocating Science, rather than attacking superstitious beliefs?

I feel we are advocates, often, but do we "evangelize" enough?
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #2

Post by McCulloch »

Image

Image
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocatin

Post #3

Post by Divine Insight »

Ooberman wrote: Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocating Science, rather than attacking superstitious beliefs?

I feel we are advocates, often, but do we "evangelize" enough?
I personally don't see science as being the polar opposite of religion.

No science is required to dismiss the Hebrew Bible.

It's also wrong to preach that science supports the idea that there cannot be a mystical magical underpinning to reality. People who believe that science can do that have been taught a very bad picture of science. It's simply not true.

Science doesn't even have a handle on "nature" yet, and it isn't likely to get a handle on nature anytime in the foreseeable future. Therefore it's not in any position to be ruling out the "super"-natural.

Science is not a religion. It does not make any concrete statements about the deepest truths of reality. There are many mysteries unknown, and I'm not talking about mere "gaps". I'm talking about profound areas that may ultimately be beyond the reach of science potentially forever.

This doesn't give the Biblical God any credence, because the Biblical God defeats itself. The dogma is self defeating. No science is required to dismiss the Bible or the Qur'an.

The Bible is stupid without science even being brought to bear against it.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7954
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Post #4

Post by Wootah »

Atheism and science aren't necessarily bed fellows.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #5

Post by McCulloch »

[Replying to post 4 by Wootah]
Where there is a conflict between what a religion teaches and the findings of science,a reasonable person would go with science. More working scientists are not religious than the general population. More religious people deny science than non-religious people. Science is definitely correlated to atheism.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Post #6

Post by Overcomer »

McCulloch wrote:
Where there is a conflict between what a religion teaches and the findings of science,a reasonable person would go with science. More working scientists are not religious than the general population. More religious people deny science than non-religious people. Science is definitely correlated to atheism.
`

Can you cite a source for this information?

Also, could you be more specific? When you say more religious people deny science, are you saying they deny all science or only specific aspects of it such as macroevolution, for example.

And when you say "religious" people, are you talking about adherents of all religions or of specific religions such as Christianity or Islam?

I'm not asking these questions to be cheeky. The statements you made are generalizations and too broad to make an impact as is. I simply want more information to better assess them.

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #7

Post by Ooberman »

Overcomer wrote: McCulloch wrote:
Where there is a conflict between what a religion teaches and the findings of science,a reasonable person would go with science. More working scientists are not religious than the general population. More religious people deny science than non-religious people. Science is definitely correlated to atheism.
`

Can you cite a source for this information?

Also, could you be more specific? When you say more religious people deny science, are you saying they deny all science or only specific aspects of it such as macroevolution, for example.

And when you say "religious" people, are you talking about adherents of all religions or of specific religions such as Christianity or Islam?

I'm not asking these questions to be cheeky. The statements you made are generalizations and too broad to make an impact as is. I simply want more information to better assess them.

I think his generalizations are fair. For example you say "macroevolution" which is not a scientific term.



However, I'd also make a point there are many atheists who have as horrible an understanding of science as many religionists. (Atheists who believe in Homeopathy or who are against vaccines).

And, to make the generalization stronger, it's a fact that MOST PEOPLE IN GENERAL are not knowledgable of Science - as proven by many polls and studies.

Since Religious people generally out-number the non-religious, the generalization that the religious are relatively ignorant about science is necessarily true.


Don't worry, it doesn't mean you specifically, you may be the one religionist that is well-versed in science, but the odds are, every person you meet is bad at science.



That said, there are two things atheists tend to, generally, be more knowledgable of than the general population:

1. Science
2. Religion

Go figure... :-/


Oh, and
3. How to party hardy...
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #8

Post by bluethread »

Ooberman wrote:
Overcomer wrote: McCulloch wrote:
Where there is a conflict between what a religion teaches and the findings of science,a reasonable person would go with science. More working scientists are not religious than the general population. More religious people deny science than non-religious people. Science is definitely correlated to atheism.
`

Can you cite a source for this information?

Also, could you be more specific? When you say more religious people deny science, are you saying they deny all science or only specific aspects of it such as macroevolution, for example.

And when you say "religious" people, are you talking about adherents of all religions or of specific religions such as Christianity or Islam?

I'm not asking these questions to be cheeky. The statements you made are generalizations and too broad to make an impact as is. I simply want more information to better assess them.

I think his generalizations are fair. For example you say "macroevolution" which is not a scientific term.



However, I'd also make a point there are many atheists who have as horrible an understanding of science as many religionists. (Atheists who believe in Homeopathy or who are against vaccines).

And, to make the generalization stronger, it's a fact that MOST PEOPLE IN GENERAL are not knowledgable of Science - as proven by many polls and studies.

Since Religious people generally out-number the non-religious, the generalization that the religious are relatively ignorant about science is necessarily true.


Don't worry, it doesn't mean you specifically, you may be the one religionist that is well-versed in science, but the odds are, every person you meet is bad at science.



That said, there are two things atheists tend to, generally, be more knowledgable of than the general population:

1. Science
2. Religion

Go figure... :-/


Oh, and
3. How to party hardy...
Hold it! I thought atheism was the lack of belief in a deity, period. How can one be evangelistic about the lack of belief? Wouldn't one be evangelistic about what one does believe? Aren't you calling on scientific humanists to be more evangelical? Then wouldn't the scientific method be a sacrament, empiricism a dogma, and the various theorems the doctrines of the scientific humanist? Would this not then constitute a religion in the sense of the fourth definition in wikipedia; "Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to."?

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #9

Post by Ooberman »

Atheism is, like theism, the position one holds on one question: "Is there a God?"

That, philosophically, is the proper way of talking about it.

However, as we know theists (and atheists) have different views about what the answer to that questions means.

Here, informally, we know that a majority of atheists are science-oriented, if atheist apologists are going advocate their "no god" position, they might attach it to a "pro science" message, rather than "there is no god and you know it".

Likewise, as you know some theists might advocate for Jesus, but others may advocate for Buddha.

So, yes, atheism only means "no god", but we use the term loosely when speaking informally.

If, however, you are in a philosophical debate (where terms are more precise), then you have to consider atheism means "no god" and nothing else.


Informally, science and atheism go well together, and many atheists find their lack of belief in gods strongly tied to the supporting evidence provided by science. Something theists struggle with doing for their beliefs.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24864
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Post #10

Post by Goat »

Ooberman wrote: Atheism is, like theism, the position one holds on one question: "Is there a God?"

That, philosophically, is the proper way of talking about it.

However, as we know theists (and atheists) have different views about what the answer to that questions means.

Here, informally, we know that a majority of atheists are science-oriented, if atheist apologists are going advocate their "no god" position, they might attach it to a "pro science" message, rather than "there is no god and you know it".

Likewise, as you know some theists might advocate for Jesus, but others may advocate for Buddha.

So, yes, atheism only means "no god", but we use the term loosely when speaking informally.

If, however, you are in a philosophical debate (where terms are more precise), then you have to consider atheism means "no god" and nothing else.


Informally, science and atheism go well together, and many atheists find their lack of belief in gods strongly tied to the supporting evidence provided by science. Something theists struggle with doing for their beliefs.
I somewhat disagree. Science makes atheism intellectually rewarding. However, the atheist will use science, not so much to disprove God, but to show that other claims that go along with the claim there is a God is factually incorrect. For example, the claim 'the earth was created in 6 days', or 'there was a world wide flood', or 'noahs ark is on such and such a peak'. Those are claims about the real world that religion claims, that can be addressed and shown to be incorrect.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply