What Does Being An Atheist Actually Entail? (Theism in mind)

[rexbeccarox]

FFS, dude. Please look up the meaning of scientific theory vs. hypothesis. Few here will take you at all seriously until you understand the difference.

[Esquilax]

I do contest this statement, however:
"Meanwhile, the scientists just kinda put their observations and hypotheses out there for everyone to test, and have a easily researchable track record of retracting those same hypotheses when they're proven to be wrong."

In my opinion, this only applies to disciplines that can be done again and again and you will get roughly, or always the same results every time.  I agree that a recorded track record would be plausible here.
However, it gets fuzzy when they try to tackle on as something as illustrating how the universe could be formed. The problem with astrophysics is that it is highly abstract and simply built upon mathematical models scientists have created and have to jump through hoops (like projecting constant variables) to make it even be a well-developed theory.  On top of that, these mathematical model can't be actually disproven without any superior, empirical evidence that would suggest otherwise.  Sure there might be more scientists who come up with another model of how it COULD happen, but it's still a theory and therefore doesn't disprove the preexisting ones.  

Well, sure, but you don't think the scientists acknowledge all that? They do, you know: the general consensus of the physics community, beyond the mathematical models and theoretical ideas, is that at present we aren't even fully equipped to discuss the concepts most likely involved in universal origins, for a number of reasons. We'll need, in all probability, an entirely new set of terms, nearly a whole new language, to properly explore what happened before and during the onset of our current universe; it is, after all, a state of being entirely unlike anything we've ever experienced. You should read some of those cosmology papers sometime, the conclusions almost uniformly state that, even among the more well known theorems in the field.

Besides that, science is conducted with the understanding that what it explores is probabilistic, working only with the information currently available and not binding certainties. When you say that we can't be certain as we're lacking empirical data, you aren't saying anything new, you're actually stating one of the basic principles of the scientific method, that what you see is based only on what we currently know, and is not an absolute.

Ultimately though, the question is this: you have on the one hand a set of theories created by some of the sharpest minds we currently have, based on all of the data currently available to us, and with that data and the inferences they draw from it on full display for you to see at any time. On the other hand, you have an unverifiable idea based on faith, where none of the data is available and the inferences are drawn in service to the conclusion, rather than what the data- which they aren't looking at- represents. Which of those seems most likely to be true at this time?

Why on earth would you pick the latter over the former?

[Surgenator]

Theories such as these, which are needed to give support for the creation of the universe, certainly cannot be preformed in the first place.  There's no way for any person to confirm this, not even the scientists.  Scientists of this field might say that the mathematics make sense, but only in itself... This is the only way they form their credibility - by other scientists, not a shown track record.
On top of that, these mathematical model can't be actually disproven without any superior, empirical evidence that would suggest otherwise.  Sure there might be more scientists who come up with another model of how it COULD happen, but it's still a theory and therefore doesn't disprove the preexisting ones.  

The mathematical models CAN be disproven and often are. The mathematical models HAVE TO match the OBSERVATIONS we see. If they don't, then they are disproven.

Consider the christian model of how the universe was made, ie magic. Is magic an explanation or a cop out? I'll give you a hint, the answers doesn't start with the letter e.

[robvalue]

To be an atheist requires absolutely nothing more than the rejection of God claims. Anything else is down to the individual atheist, so shouldn't be assumed. It may be the case that many atheists are sceptics, but it's not correct to equate the two.

For example, I may believe in ghosts, fairies, the bogey man, think science is utter rubbish and a conspiracy, think the Big Bang is wrong and the universe has existed infinitely long into the past in pretty much the state it is in now. And I may also not believe there is a god. So I'm an atheist.

Also, rejecting the God claim is not the same as claiming there is no God. For a further explanation, please check this out:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

[Mudhammam]

To quote a well-known scientist and critic of religion:

"There's much that we don't know about the universe and its origin. But everything we know, we know through science. And we're still learning."

[Minimalist]

There's no atheist belief system. There is merely the observation that humanity has created thousands of gods and all of them are bullshit.

Science, scientists and the scientific method are real. There is no equivalency between Science and your gods until you can provide evidence that such gods are real.

[Alex K]

There's no atheist belief system.   There is merely the observation that humanity has created thousands of gods and all of them are bullshit.

Science, scientists and the scientific method are real.   There is no equivalency between Science and your gods until you can provide evidence that such gods are real.

And might I add, if you deny the value of evidence to determine what is true, you are basically a solipsist, no?

[Jericho]

I love this thread more and more for every post submitted.

[robvalue]

If you want to stack up religion against science, consider this:

Science makes accurate, useful predictions using the models it has constructed to be the best fit to reality as currently possible. If the predictions don't work, the model is revised. When they do work, you have a powerful tool for making progress. Most importantly: these predictions are very specific, and can be shown to be wrong.

What accurate, useful, specific predictions has religion ever made? If the human brain somehow stopped benefiting from the placebo effect, and confirmation bias was deleted, the house of cards would come down pretty quickly.

[Red Economist]

“Unless one can genuinely believe that all of these secular scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest their belief in it….”

In other words, unless one personally dives in to the study and proof of evolution and astrophysics, that person is essentially putting faith in another person’s beliefs and conclusions to be sound.  Similarly, that same person will refuse to believe in theistic teachings.  Why put faith in the biased assertions of scientists over the biased assertions of theism.  (I say theism because the teachings/representation of a religion is not always what that religion was originally founded upon).  Why so easily accept one, yet not genuinely search the answers for the other?  It is certainly not because abstract science, by the means of proving creation, is easier to understand. The short answer is because the alternative belief (theism) would completely change the dynamic of your life and future-it is easier not to investigate the topic further.  Being open is the first and hardest step–requiring submitting to unaccountability, pride, and change.

The same could question could be posed upon theists, however.  Why not search for the science creation proof?  The crucial difference between the two instances is that every theist can and does completely understand their belief – it’s called faith.  The problem for most atheists is that they can’t and don’t fully understand why they believe it.  Top-notch scientists in the field of astrophysics, cosmology, and evolution – as flawed as it is – have a merit to be an atheist because they fully understand what it means to be.  Most others, on the other hand, are putting complete faith in to human scientists to justify their beliefs.  There’s a distinct and vital difference between the founders of a belief, and the followers.  
Again, with all of that said, people who believe in a god know what it means to believe in it – faith.  Not faith in scientists, but faith in the belief of an omnipotent god that rests upon the fact we don’t know all of the answers.  
Better put, what will it be: blind faith in others humans’ finite intellect, or blind faith in an omnipotent god?  Theism gives the tools (e.g. literature and teachings) and capability (e.g. faith, intellect (or lack of), human morals ect.) for everyone to independently be a part of what it means to believe in it.
Science creation simply doesn’t do it for most.  Trusting scientists’ say-so is not what I wish to “worship”, if you will.


Sorry if I offended any of you.  I'm just trying to say my thoughts.  If you want to criticize any of it go ahead.  God Bless.

It is true that to some extent that we are trusting scientists as authorities in their fields to tell us what they have studied and discovered. Ultimately, Knowledge is a shared body of thought rather than one based on individual belief. But this shared knowledge is considered knowledge because it is objectively true and can be demonstrated by the scientific method. It can therefore inform our actions in predicting and aticipating their results based on our understanding of the laws of nature. So here we can see that, if we accept that science is a "faith", it is clearly not blind. In order to have this conservation people had to make scientific discoveries that made it technologically possible to produce a laptop and an internet connection; the evidence of sciences ability to make discoveries and then apply them to everyday uses is all around us.
I think it is important to recognise that scientists are not omniscient, and there authority is relative to what they can proof and achieve. Whilst Scientific knowledge may be flawed perhaps are being self-contradictory nor in providing full explanations of the world, that is not the same as saying it is 'wrong', it is simply incomplete.. Scientific knowledge therefore evolves and changes over time as one theory is replaced by a better one, which is better at explaining the way the world works which can be demonstrated via results.

However, not all our ideas can be easily tested in the laboratory and science does therefore rest on knowledge claims that knowledge of the objective world is possible. Consequently, it often has a close association with materialism in seeking naturalistic explanations for the cause of phenomena which can be studied, observed and repeated through experimentation. Scientific Knowledge and the Philosophy of Science are not 'self-evident'; they are not revealed to us by scripture, but are a long process of repeated conflicts over what we currently know with new evidence that doesn't necessarily fit into our 'paradigm', thereby necessitating a new way of thinking to incorporate this evidence. Science is the work of hundreds of years of study and therefore looks at knowledge cliams in a way that is very different from religion/theism. Atheism as a single proposition that 'god does not exist' does not entail a world view, but is often related to a different understanding of how the world works than the  one offered by religion because it concerns the whether the source/cause of phenomena is a natural explanation or a supernatural one.