Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why you are an atheist? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    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 proved. 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
    So it's not "definite" that the world is not flat, and it's not "definite" that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    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'.




    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.
    I take it you're a philosophy student.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    So it's not "definite" that the world is not flat, and it's not "definite" that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth?
    It's not even definitely known that the external world exists! Bertrand Russell maintained that the only thing we can know for definite is that thoughts exist (even more radical than Descartes who thought the only thing we could know for sure is that a 'thinking thing' exists - the famous "I think therefore I am" )

    So, yes, we don't even know if the outside world exists for sure. If we can't know this, we certainly can't know anything for certain from either science or religion. Hence both require faith, although, I would agree, different levels of faith. But they both require it nonetheless.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Bertrand Russell (that famous atheist) showed to be insufficient for proving anything.
    Russell, of course, was speaking in his capacity as a philosopher, not as an atheist, when he said that. The concept of proof is a philosophical one and of no real account.

    Any argument that scientists' prognostications are invalid through lack of proof is ridiculous. It is always made, I notice, by people who rely on the fruits of scientists' non-proof to live their daily lives. The computer you are using relies on their prognostications being accurate, yet nothing you do (outside your own head) relies on the validity of the contention that there are gods to work.
    Offline

    20
    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.
    you are quite right... the scientific project is a series of conjectures and refutations...*
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Russell, of course, was speaking in his capacity as a philosopher, not as an atheist, when he said that. The concept of proof is a philosophical one and of no real account.

    Any argument that scientists' prognostications are invalid through lack of proof is ridiculous. It is always made, I notice, by people who rely on the fruits of scientists' non-proof to live their daily lives. The computer you are using relies on their prognostications being accurate, yet nothing you do (outside your own head) relies on the validity of the contention that there are gods to work.
    it's infuriating to debate these people
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    It's not even definitely known that the external world exists! Bertrand Russell maintained that the only thing we can know for definite is that thoughts exist (even more radical than Descartes who thought the only thing we could know for sure is that a 'thinking thing' exists - the famous "I think therefore I am" )

    So, yes, we don't even know if the outside world exists for sure. If we can't know this, we certainly can't know anything for certain from either science or religion. Hence both require faith, although, I would agree, different levels of faith. But they both require it nonetheless.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Of course, the only entity that is definite to exist in the universe is oneself, but physical observation, and potentially decomposition, is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I am, of course, assuming all matter exists for sure, since that is the typical approach that is logical, since not assuming so will cause most philisophic [schools of] thought to collapse.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Russell, of course, was speaking in his capacity as a philosopher, not as an atheist, when he said that. The concept of proof is a philosophical one and of no real account.

    Any argument that scientists' prognostications are invalid through lack of proof is ridiculous. It is always made, I notice, by people who rely on the fruits of scientists' non-proof to live their daily lives. The computer you are using relies on their prognostications being accurate, yet nothing you do (outside your own head) relies on the validity of the contention that there are gods to work.
    It's not that the scientists' conclusions aren't true, it's that because all of science relies on an element of faith, you can't (as one person was) cast aside religion on the basis that it relies on faith.

    This is the only point I wanted to get across.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    It's not that the scientists' conclusions aren't true, it's that because all of science relies on an element of faith, you can't (as one person was) cast aside religion on the basis that it relies on faith.

    This is the only point I wanted to get across.
    what aspect of science? Be specific. Take the theory of gravity for example, what aspect of that theory relies on faith?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotImaginative)
    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.
    My experience would definitely differ from yours to be honest and after looking at the state of TSR when it comes to religious debate, I don't think its appropriate to name or shame any religion so I wont explain why.

    When I speak of individualism I mean the ability of people to be the principal driver of who they are and what they do. This is obviously opposed to collectivism which religion is a form of, which makes claims on your life and dictates for you, for whatever reason, how you live it. Also religion does in many ways [again my experience is subjective and differs from yours] puts people on pedestals and encourages this idea that you are better than those who don't hold the same beliefs as you do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am an atheist because faith doesn't make sense. The religious tote faith as some holy and amazing trait some people have, when it's actually just believing things without having any evidence for them.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    God told me he doesn't exist
    Offline

    13
    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.
    Science does prove stuff.It has been proven that the earth is a sphere.It has been proven that the earth goes around the sun.It is proven that germs cause disease.If you are going to be pedantic you could say maybe our brain and senses are fooling us.But that is being utterly pedantic to the point of being a bore.At some point it becomes appropriate to say that these things have been proven otherwise the word loses all meaning and you may as well just abandon the entire enterprise.We can say that the earth being a sphere is never going to be disproved.To say otherwise is just being pedantic.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a pagan.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    A few reasons.
    1. Was bullied by theists when I was younger + unsure about religion and sort of thought that obviously religion didn't make you a better person
    2. No proof of God
    3. Wouldn't want to worship someone who lets innocent people suffer and die
    4. Don't want to worship someone who made women go through pain for a majority of their life as "punishment"
    5. Science can pretty much explain everything with evidence and logic
    6. Don't like the idea of living my life according to someone else's plan for me - makes me feel insignificant
    Offline

    12
    Physics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Whenever there is any doubt about the available information you always must stand by the null hypothesis that 'nothing' is true unless proven. A being as extraordinary as God requires extraordinary evidence, and nothing of the sort has thus far emerged. In fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary has, against the existence of God. By the very nature of God, one cannot say that he certainly does not exist. However, it is very realistic to say he almost certainly does not exist, based upon the mountain of evidence against him.

    The only half-justifiable divine stance is believing in a creator - a being who made the universe - but then buggered off somewhere afterwards; you could argue that the universe is too complex to be an accident, although again there is no evidence to suggest it has divine origin either. So you could weakly hypothesise that a creator God exists, but it is nothing more than a theory based upon tenuous lines of thought. A God of scripture, however, is clearly an invention of mankind. The sculpture is contradictory both to itself and science, and the idea that a being that is so powerful it could create a universe would care in the slightest whether or not you have sex before marriage, have a homosexual relationship, wear garments made of two different materials, pour some water over your child's head or anything else as insignificant as this is just ludicrous. Sure, you may argue that it's nicer to have an omnibenevolent being watching over you and ensuring you live forever in the afterlife, but just because it's a nice idea that doesn't mean it's true. Believing 'just in case' is equally as foolish, because this suggests you don't really believe in God at all and are just too scared of the alternative.
    What is the evidence against God (a non-personal Einstein God)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    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'.




    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.
    lol I dont know how you bother replying to some of these comments! Sadly there are many that still think philosophy is only concerned with metaphysics
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I see no convincing evidence for any kind of deity.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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.

Updated: December 8, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.