Join TSR now for chat about life, relationships, fashion and more…Sign up now

Why you are an atheist?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    I'm not. I think you're just as bad putting your entire belief in the theories of scientists as those that have a faith and religion. You're both choosing to believe in something that hasn't been proven. I put myself in the agnostic category - I acknowledge that either side has their own amount of evidence and same lack of actual proof and either could be true (or false), therefore I remain open to either idea, i.e. I believe that there could be a God, but I won't actually believe that there is or isn't until I see concrete proof, which there isn't or people wouldn't be debating the topic and picking their side.
    Some, scientific concepts and theories have been proven, others have not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Haven't seen any evidence to suggest there is a god.

    I have seen mountains evidence debunk religious claims about the world (I have two degrees relating to Evolution).

    Have certainly never seen any evidence that if there is a god, it is benevolent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You are confusing a theory with a hypothesis, scientifically speaking.
    This is important. Theories usually consist of a hypothesis, which typically have some basis based on current scientific belief, which is then tested with evidence, studies, experiments and known facts. Few theories have no evidence whatsoever.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You are confusing a theory with a hypothesis, scientifically speaking.
    that is your theory.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    that is your theory.*
    That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Although theories do not necessarily have to have evidence by definition, most theories, in order to be accepted by the scientific community, are tested and evidenced.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It certainly is. Faith, in this case, is belief in something that can't be proved. Another name for it is superstition, and religions are simply institutionalised superstitions.

    Belief that black cats bring good luck is just as valid as Christianity and Islam, and is far less likely to get a non-believer killed, injured, persecuted or abused so is much more acceptable.
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but even science never 'proves' things.

    For example, Russell explained the problem of induction (which science relies upon). It never proves anything. He used the example of a chicken which, for every day of its life had been fed early in the morning. So, using induction, the chicken should be perfectly justified in waking up the next morning and expecting to be fed - because that's what all the data tells it. But actually what happens is that its head is chopped off and its eaten for dinner.

    This is just one. Science relies on all kinds of faith, such as the faith that our senses accuratey perceive the external world, that the external world acts in a regular way, that the world wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age, that logic and maths are true etc.

    In addition, there is also the argument that science is constantly updating itself so at any one time nothing can be known for certain. For example, every scientist felt sure that the continents didn't move, until tectonic plates were discovered 50 years ago.

    To discard religion on the basis that it involves 'faith' would entail also casting aside all of human scientific knowledge at the same time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There is absolutely zero reason to suggest there is a God. I wonder, would religion be as popular if there was no promise of afterlife? It seems like that's the only reason to believe; reward.

    It's such an utterly human concept.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)

    To discard religion on the basis that it involves 'faith' would entail also casting aside all of human scientific knowledge at the same time.
    What a load of ****.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    A few reasons. Firstly, I see no evidence that there is a god. That in itself is enough, I think.

    I also like having the judge the morality of my behaviour without the guidelines of a religion. It means that I possibly have to work harder to justify everything I do, which I see as a good thing.

    Finally, this way I can get out of the religious ceremonies that my more religious friends have to go through. They go to church, I get extra revision time.

    If I needed the emotional support of an organised religion, or some belief in a higher power to make me feel more comfortable, perhaps I'd consider overlooking the logical flaws and lack of evidence. I'm happy enough as an atheist, though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but even science never 'proves' things.

    For example, Russell explained the problem of induction (which science relies upon). It never proves anything. He used the example of a chicken which, for every day of its life had been fed early in the morning. So, using induction, the chicken should be perfectly justified in waking up the next morning and expecting to be fed - because that's what all the data tells it. But actually what happens is that its head is chopped off and its eaten for dinner.

    This is just one. Science relies on all kinds of faith, such as the faith that our senses accuratey perceive the external world, that the external world acts in a regular way, that the world wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age, that logic and maths are true etc.

    In addition, there is also the argument that science is constantly updating itself so at any one time nothing can be known for certain. For example, every scientist felt sure that the continents didn't move, until tectonic plates were discovered 50 years ago.

    To discard religion on the basis that it involves 'faith' would entail also casting aside all of human scientific knowledge at the same time.
    There are several scientific theories that have been proved to be true:
    • The Earth is not flat.
    • The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth.
    • Habituation
    • Natural Selection
    • etc.
    • etc.
    Stating that science can never, or will never prove something is quite a foolish statement to assert. Are you aware that it is possible to prove, or disprove scientific theories, unlike a deity, which cannot proved or disproved, but can be disregarded within reason. (Read: Not disproved, disregarded)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    What a load of ****.
    Atheist logic: ignore the preceding 3 paragraphs and just shout "that's ridiculous!!" at the concluding line
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    There are several scientific theories that have been proved to be true:
    • The Earth is not flat.
    • The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth.
    • Habituation
    • Natural Selection
    • etc.
    • etc.
    Stating that science can never, or will never prove something is quite a foolish statement to assert. Are you aware that it is possible to prove, or disprove scientific theories, unlike a deity, which cannot proved or disproved, but can be disregarded within reason. (Read: Not disproved, disregarded)
    No offence, but you should seriously research some philosophy of science. All these findings rely on induction, which Bertrand Russell (that famous atheist) showed to be insufficient for proving anything. Although it can show things to very high probabilities, it cannot be proven. To say science finds truth is a statement of faith.

    This is just one of the reasons why science cannot be proved, I listed some of the others in that earlier post
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    There is absolutely zero reason to suggest there is a God. I wonder, would religion be as popular if there was no promise of afterlife? It seems like that's the only reason to believe; reward.

    It's such an utterly human concept.
    My conjecture is that religion was an attempt to draw power to organisations such as the church, which somewhat can explain why religion is so self-serving and discourages questioning the content within. In some cases, it is clear that the authors got a bit carried away with their sociopathic fantasies. If it didn't offer a sense of community, the clever philosophers that created religion would have failed in their attempt to get their ideals instated in modern society. Of course, the promise of the afterlife does somewhat comfort many, in the fact that a loved one may still be watching from somewhere. Unfortunately, that is extremely extremely improbable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Atheist logic: ignore the preceding 3 paragraphs and just shout "that's ridiculous!!" at the concluding line
    I didn't ignore 3 paragraphs. I only addressed the line which I quoted...

    Are you religious?


    EDIT: Do you agree that religion is, in most cases, merely a product of the geography? For example, the majority of our lovely ISOC members are most likely of Asian decent, and our Christian users are most likely White/from a Christian majority country?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    I didn't ignore 3 paragraphs. I only addressed the line which I quoted...

    Are you religious?
    No I'm not especially religious. You quoted only the conclusion and ignored the rest. If you want to engage in real debate you should try disputing one of the steps leading up to the conclusion, rather than just shouting at the conclusion itself. That's generally how it works.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Some, scientific concepts and theories have been proven, others have not.
    Just like some of the stuff in the bible has been proven. Doesn't change the fact that each belief system is just that - something that you deem to be plausible and choose to believe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    No I'm not especially religious. You quoted only the conclusion and ignored the rest. If you want to engage in real debate you should try disputing one of the steps leading up to the conclusion, rather than just shouting at the conclusion itself. That's generally how it works.
    I'm not debating philosophy. I don't want to debate the semantics of what 'proof' means and how that relates to science.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    To discard religion on the basis that it involves 'faith' would entail also casting aside all of human scientific knowledge at the same time.
    ...is an extremely naive and ignorant thing to say. Science is not a 'belief' system that's comparable to religion. Religion relies on blind faith, something that science does not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pulse.)
    I value individualism and equality.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hmmm. I really think that depends on the way you interpret religion. As a female Christian I have found that I've always been seen and treated as an individual and have never been treated unequally and our church is quite diverse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    Just like some of the stuff in the bible has been proven. Doesn't change the fact that each belief system is just that - something that you deem to be plausible and choose to believe.
    I never contested that. Religious scripture does exhibit some of the scientific beliefs believed at the time of writing. Science cannot be compared to religious scripture on the evidence front. The Bible offers little explanation and little supporting evidence to allow people to make mental deductions. It compensates for this by frowning upon anyone who "dares" contest the views. Religion, in fact, often frowns upon free-thinking, so that one may not question the belief system and thus draw power away from religious organisations, such as the church.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    I'm not debating philosophy. I don't want to debate the semantics of what 'proof' means and how that relates to science.
    lol. 'I'm not debating philosophy' may as well be written as 'I'm not debating with logic', or 'I'm not debating using reason', or 'I'm not serious about having an intellectual discussion'.


    (Original post by hezzlington)
    ...is an extremely naive and ignorant thing to say. Science is not a 'belief' system that's comparable to religion.
    It is, in that it involves faith for all the reasons I've explained and you've ignored/don't understand. When you have some real objections, which use philosophy, I'll reply to them.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: December 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.