I Am An Atheist

[i]"If you're a religious person, you might wanna pop out for about five minutes" -Tim Minchin[/i]

Warning: If you aren't familiar with Star Trek The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine, the second paragraph of this may be lost on you. Also, Fix that. Now. Seriously. Go away, watch both of those shows in their entirety, then come back. Seriously. Go. Now. You didn't? OK. Fine. Be like that.

Religion is having faith without scientific proof or sufficient evidence. And that's OK. That's actually an important part of science itself. I like to use the example of Alfred Wegener. And before I say any more, I am fully aware I am giving a significant amount of people traumatic flashbacks to their physics class. Bear with me. So Alfred Wegener was the scientist who theorised that the continents on our planet move. The theory of continental drift. At the time, the scientific community didn't believe that Wegener was correct because he didn't have sufficient evidence to prove his theory. Now, many years later, with the use of more accurate instruments as well as the discovery of a mechanism that explains continental drift, we accept Wegener's theory as correct. This means that there was a substantial amount of time when what Wegener said was correct, but not accepted as true by the scientific community. Just because the scientific community doesn't accept something as true now, doesn't mean that it isn't true, or that it will never be accepted. So, all of you religious people out there: Do not fear. When humans have evolved over billions of years into Gods, you will be able to prove to me scientifically that God exists!

Speaking of evolving into Gods, that was one of my favourite things about Star Trek. The omnipotent character Q was very clear that humans would in the future evolve into being even more powerful than him. Essentially, Gods. In fact, those shows' treatment of religion I really liked. Especially in Deep Space Nine. It's made clear throughout the shows that the Federation, for the most part, isn't religious. So when the Starfleet crew of Deep Space Nine encounter the "Gods" of Bajor, their immediate reaction is to call them hyper advanced aliens. I love that! They never for one second assume they're real Gods. At the same time however, they have no ill will towards the people of Bajor and their religious nature, and they accept it. Yet again, Star Trek shows us how we should live and let live, like we, for the most part, don't in real life.

[i]"And if perchance I have offended, think but this and all is mended: We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time, for all the chance you'll change your mind." -Tim Minchin[/i]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

jennypenny · 70-79, F

I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. Science neither proves or disproves God as it is concerned with the observation of natural phenomena. Of course, you must realise there is similarly no scientific proof for atheism!
Of course there never has been been any dichotomy between science and religion. It is an invention by men like Huxley. The early scientists were mostly men who believed in God. Men like Newton, faraday, Maxwell were all men who deeply believed in God as much as they believed in scientific discovery. These men believe that the universe was rational because God had designed it and could be explored by the human mind because a great mind was behind it. As the great astronomer, Kepler, said! "We are thinking God's thoughts after him!" It's only fairly recently that this false dicholtemy between science and faith has come into being. To me science indicates the orderliness in this universe was designed rather than it came together by unguided forces. The chances of that happening are so remote as to be disregarded.

RoboChloe · 26-30, F

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

The burden of proof is not on those who don't believe in God, but on those who do. We do not have to provide evidence for the nonexistence of something, for which there is no proof of existence in the first place.

I do not deny that in the past, some scientists believed in God. But to be perfectly honest, they didn't have much of a choice.

jennypenny · 70-79, F

sorry you need to brush up on your history. The reason these men did science is that they believed in a rational universe, something that an atheist cannot believe in. If you believe the universe is rational (as you do if you follow science) then you have to explain how irrational, unguided forces made it that way. The burden of proof is therefore actually upon the atheist.

RoboChloe · 26-30, F

Oh dear, how misguided. God, as a concept, provides an explanation of the universe that has no evidence. Just because sceince can not, as of yet, accurately explain something does not in any way mean that they should accept a theory with no evidence. God is in no way a rational concept, it is the most irrational of concepts. It is one that is based solely on consecutively mistranslated ancient texts and, frankly, wishful thinking. It is far more rational to simply say that you don't know something, than to say that you must accept a theory with no evidence just because you don't have a theory with evidence. I could come up, right now, with a theory of how the universe came to be, and it would have as much credibility as any established religion.

jennypenny · 70-79, F

sorry you are way off the mark. You are the one who has accepted a theory with no evidence. It is completely lacking in any form of rationality as it believes that a rational unverse (which can be investigated rationally) can come about by unguided irrational forces. It was the total irrationality of the atheist position (coupled with his realisation of the fine tuning of the universe) that caused the philosophy Anthony Flew to turn from lifelong atheism to theism.
To say that theism is 'based solely on mistranslated ancient texts' quite frankly shows your own lack of knowledge and understanding. by all means be an atheist but please do not think it is at all rational.

RoboChloe · 26-30, F

Which unguided irrational forces are you talking about? Atheism, my friend, is not voodoo. We simply do not believe in things that are unprovable. Trust me when I tell you that atheists, and I should know as I am one, do not in any way believe in "Unguided irrational forces". You are so misinformed you are simply unable to form a coherent argument.

jennypenny · 70-79, F

of course you believe in irrational unguided forces! What else are the forces? You simply don't understand the issues involved. Be an atheist by all means but please try and understand the issues involved.

RoboChloe · 26-30, F

Issues involved? What kind of forces are you talking about? I am genuinely confused by what you are saying. You have totally failed to tell me what irrational forces you think atheists believe in. I am utterly speechless. Never have I spoken to someone with suck a lack of understanding about the most simple concepts of atheism.

jennypenny · 70-79, F

I'm afraid it's not me who is lacking understanding. You do not appear to have a clue of the issues involved in what makes up the universe. I'my afraid there's a lot more to it than you get from Star Trek ! Please can I recommend you to do some reading on this subject, for example of Anthony Flew's book, 'There is a God' or Professor John Lennox 'God's Undertaker'. By all means be an atheist but look at what the real issues are. Unfortunately you apoear to be in the position of misinformation.

RoboChloe · 26-30, F

Right, so I have managed to ascertain that you are talking about the universe, and I'm simply going to assume you're talking about it's creation, because you have not told me the specific issues which you wish to discuss. So let me be clear. Us atheists do not think we know how the universe began. We do not claim to know. We do not understand it. And we don't claim to. We certainly do not claim unnatural forces. We are simply trying to use science to find out. That's all. It's quite simple. You talk of the "issues involved" but fail to tell me what they are, so that I can accurately respond to you, then, because you fail to tell me what it is I'm supposed to be refuting, you claim I'm misinformed and lack understanding. What a twisted and disingenuous way of winning an argument. If you truly believed you could win this discussion with logic, you would not have to obscure the topics at hand. In all honesty, I have no interest in talking to someone who has no interest in a fair and open discussion, so when you are ready to try lo let your point of view stand without the support of subterfuge, we may again debate this subject.

jennypenny · 70-79, F

I'm sorry but it's you who is obscuring the argument. You haven't given me one rational reason why atheism is true. What's more you don't apoear to even understand the nature of science, which is the investigation of the natural universe. If you understood this you would not think that science can somehow prove your atheist suppositions. Anyway, nice to chat! All the best!

Moribund · 26-30, M

@jennypenny: I feel that we shouldn't be taking atheism as a sort of religion, but rather the lack of it. Truly, it is naught more than a mindset in which gods and such do not exist. Atheism, does not have to be ''true'' in essence, it's just a way of thinking, not a particular movement (although it's been slowly becoming one lately...)
As much as I dislike questioning the beliefs of others, as I live by the words ''live and let live'', I must say that in this case (referring back to one of your earlier comments in this thread) you've done so and quite rudely if I may add. Saying that Robo has accepted a theory without any evidence is kind of hypocritical, isn't it now? So far, there is no concrete evidence of the existence of god, thus making you act the exact same way. I feel that atheism (atheism according to its most broadest meaning, that is) is not a set ''theory'' or something along those lines, it's just a mindset. It didn't originate from a single point in time, it has existed for as long as there's been skeptics of a particular faith (who were sadly quite short-lived during earlier ages. Heretics didn't have an easy life to say the least).
Nevertheless, this is nothing but my silly opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...
I do hope that the two of you will leave this thread behind with a smile, or at least with indifference. Best of luck to the both of you!

P.S. Sorry if I came off a bit rude, I didn't mean to provoke or offend in any way.