Both sides are right!

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
Drewcgs11's picture
Athiest have philosophy on

Athiest have philosophy on life and death. Saying there is no god is a belief and a philosophy ,there are reasons to belive that.

CyberLN's picture
I identify as atheist. I

I identify as atheist. I have never said' "there is no god." I would never say it.

People who identify as atheist may embrace any number of philosophies but that does not mean those philosophies are a part of atheism. All atheism is, is a rejection of the assertion that god(s) exist. Nothing more!

That one guy's picture
I identify as a asexual

I identify as a asexual gender fluid toaster and I also reject the assertion that god exists. See no other prerequisites required.

That one guy's picture
Exactly atheism has no core

Exactly atheism has no core belief. We just happened to get put in a box because everyone else has a belief and we don't. It really should be the other way around. Its kind of like playing an rpg and not picking a clan. We are the default. Its everyone else that is in belief boxes.

Drewcgs11's picture
athiest by definition is a

athiest by definition is a disbelief in a god so that is the box its accurate to say athiest have that in common

Rawan's picture
It seems from what you wrote

It seems from what you wrote throughout this thread that you think both religion and scientific speech adopted by atheistts brought the same number of "valid points" and "strong arguments" and so they are at the same level importance in the debate. But historically religion and religious institutions have been wrong about most if not every aspect of nature and the universe ( flat, 6000 years old earth/ the sun revolves around the earth/ intelligent design, etc...)

Scientific progress in fields like Astronomy, Physics and Molecular Biology have uncovered many verifiable truths. Those discoveries cannot be equated with the folkloric misconceptions found in religious scripture. The sacred texts of the most broadly practiced religions today are full of such misconceptions and cannot represent in any way an alternative to actual verifiable scientific facts.

It's true that Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but it doesn't invent fables to fill the gaps like religion does. Scientists are aware of Science's current limitations and of the extent of its potential. Religion proclaims possessing absolute truths while reciting ancient legends written centuries ago. Science is malleable, evolving whenever new realities come to light. Scientific knowledge is growing as humanity as whole grows and matures. Religious scripture remains the same, religious teachings are rigid and stagnant. The only way some religious factions evolved was by abandoning significant parts of their previous teachings in favor of more scientifically inclined ones.

So when it comes to facts about the universe, and I'm not talking about morality or "ideology" here, I think it's safe to say that religion is really close to being 100% wrong, scientifically speaking.
Today, the only acceptable way by which we determine if a certain allegation is "right" or not is the scientific method, that means finding tangible or measurable evidence to support a certain hypothesis. We can't possibly assess a scientific hypothesis by going back to some old book about talking snakes, flying mules or multi-headed animal demi-gods. So not only are Science and Religion not equal but it's also impossible for science to prove religion is right, because it has already proved it wrong about many things.

You're talking about Atheist "ideology", but I don't think that's a thing since the only trait atheists have in common is not believing in any deity, but other than that they belong to very different currents of thought. Still, it doesn't make any sense saying that science can prove atheists and religious people are both right, that just defies logic. The scientific consensus at any given moment in History simply cannot be simultaneously with and against a certain idea.

You also brought up the idea that God, the Universe, and Energy could be different names of the same entity.That is an interesting angle of looking at it, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

A God that is worth worshipping or at least aknowledging is a moral entity, that has intentions, motives, caracter, that has a mind of its own. The universe as we know it is nothing more than the sum of its manifestations ( and Energy is one of those manifestations), it has no ulterior motives, no intentions behind the way it behaves, it is not governed by any ideals but merely by laws of physics, it is devoid of any conscience or moral drive. The universe does not think or feel, it can't see us or judge us or care about us, it just exists.

The majority of religions are based on the worship of Deities, that have a long list of human-like characterics and actions: they're merciful, they're violent, they love, they punish, they get angry, they judge, they forgive, they save, they curse, etc... So I don't see how the Universe, with its absolute indifference and inexistant conscience can fit the frame of a "God" in the way religion presents it.

Drewcgs11's picture
Let me stop you right there

Let me stop you right there buddy you didn't have to write all that i do not think science and religion have the same level or numbers of strong arguments in fact i think there are very few solid arguments in religion and a whole lot of strong arguments on science side. BUT the few religion has gotten right are worth way more points. Its the foundation and its almost like that game in harry potter quiddicth when if you cacth the bird you win the game no matter what the score is and cacthing the bird is very important to the game the strong points religion has are more valuable than just any regular strong points.

That one guy's picture
What points does religion

What points does religion have? Can't drop a bomb like well religion has won the quiddicth match cause they have one strong point. What is it. Explain.

Drewcgs11's picture
There are universal laws, i

There are universal laws, i believe in a multiverse were there a diffrent universal laws which would explain some of the traits of god like always existing or living beyond time and space or some of the laws of this universe working stronger or weaker or not existing at all. That could be just energy or a universe but this idea originated in religion with god

chimp3's picture
Sorry Zero! I think you are

Sorry Zero! I think you are wrong. Enough with the philosophicall relativity. I am unconvinced.

Drewcgs11's picture
I highly doubt you or any

I highly doubt you or any body else has a better answer but i could be wrong but i do think its a strong argument and its definitely possible that different universal laws could explain the character traits of god always existing and time and space working differently or not at all in some other realm of reality. But to say that i am flat out wrong is very naive of you chimp 3

chimp3's picture
Your avatar says all. Cosmic

Your avatar says all. Cosmic fantasy!

Drewcgs11's picture
You dont even know what it

You dont even know what it represents it has nothing to do with cosmic fantasy.

chimp3's picture
Zero:"You dont even know what

Zero:"You dont even know what it represents it has nothing to do with cosmic fantasy."

The enlightened man with the kundalini rising all the way through the chakras and the individual now merged with the cosmic consciousness.

That one guy's picture
That makes absolutely no

That makes absolutely no sense. Because there are laws in a universe therefore god? If a universe has no defined laws it never coalesces into being. It simply falls apart into chaos and non-existence. Watch Stephen Hawking's video "Did god create the universe?" its overly simplistic but it outlines the ideas behind it pretty well. Besides that, no the multiverse theory did not originate from religion. If you are saying that in some universe out there somewhere there is a being very similar to god. Yes that is a possibility. Did it create this universe and do all the things our various religious books said. That is highly unlikely. It is far far far far far more likely that all religious stuff that has originated on planet earth is just a bunch of made up bullshit.

Drewcgs11's picture
Religion has been around for

Religion has been around for thousands of years.

"
That makes absolutely no sense. Because there are laws in a universe therefore god? "

That is not what i am saying, different universal laws then the laws of this universe could explain the character traits of god which has been claimed by religion thousands of years ago being the originators of this philosophy of something being a ENERGY, GOD , OR JUST ANOTHER UNIVERSE having certain capabilities and rules and laws that are more superior to our laws or just different then our universal laws this possibility originated with religion because they say god lives in a place where there is no space and time and always exist and a multiverse with different universal laws explains how that could be possible.

That one guy's picture
Again no the multiverse

Again no the multiverse theory did not come from religion. Schrodinger was the first to reference the idea of multiple universes. It just so happens if you apply that theory in a odd sort of way it leaves room for a god like being to exist in some universe somewhere. But according to the multiverse theory literally every possibility will exist in some universe somewhere.

Theoretically some universe holds and all powerful magical talking unicorn. But did that being create our universe or planet? Odds are no. Did a god make all the events of the bible occur. As pretty much all the evidence suggests no. Could it have happened? Well shit anything is possible. All we know is we think therefore we are. If you don't except the reality you are presented you will be driven insane. I could be in a mental institution banging my head against a wall. BUT I think I'm in front of my computer trying to help someone correct their flawed logic.

Since God hasn't made an appearance since the bible days(aside from which the bible has be proven to be grossly wrong on many occasions by history) it seems to follow that the monotheistic religions were all generations of the time period. You are reaching to far for something that is far less likely to be the case. No evidence in our universe supports a god like being. Nor is there any evidence that even if there was a god like being in some other universe that it would have the capability to ignore the laws of physics in our universe and start making things. And for that matter make our specific universe in particular. Everything in our universe is subject to the laws of physics here so how could something from another universe interact with our universe that contains different laws. Theories on top of theories upon questions which are way way too reaching. It is far more likely that the reality that is far simpler spelled out in front of us is the real one.

Now granted I could be wrong. God may address all of humanity tomorrow and say he is back after traveling through all the universes. But most of the evidence points to some crack pots in a hut in the middle east inventing stories that gathered people together to conquer empires(read about Muhamad and the roman empire's use of Catholicism).

Drewcgs11's picture
"Again no the multiverse

"Again no the multiverse theory did not come from religion. Schrodinger was the first to reference the idea of multiple universes"

The multiverse theory and the theory of god are different labels but are actually saying the same thing and has the same meaning its like a chair and a couch both they are pretty much the same thing but the architecture is different and use for sitting. Same goes for this god theoretically has different universal laws and a multiverse would have different universal laws so a multiverse would explain the character traits of god always existing and space and time working differently or not at all in some other universe aka different universal laws the god theory has been claimed thousands of years before any multiverse was thought of therefore this concept was originated with religion with the theory of god.

CyberLN's picture
Zero, if you ever run across

Zero, if you ever run across a job advert for someone to fit square pegs into round holes, you should absolutely apply for it.

Drewcgs11's picture
This is what i am talking

This is what i am talking about both sides have strong points but neither side is willing to compromise and hear each other out which leads to closed minds and a limited amount of progress of knowledge and learning. religious people think athiest are going to hell and athiest think religious people are stupid the ignorance of how bias you have to be to not see how simple what i am explaining is and to say its not a possibility is just naive and proves my point. So for the millionth time god,energy, and universe can be interchangeable they can all be represented to define the same idea ( the idea of different laws or rules being applied than the rules that we are limited to for example time and space working differently or not at all.) if you cant understand how simple that is and how strong of a argument that is then i can't help you only time will tell if you will ever understand but i did my job in sharing knowledge that i know its up to you guys to think critically and objectively!

chimp3's picture
Zero: So, if we don't agree

Zero: So, if we don't agree with you that means we did not understand?

Drewcgs11's picture
No it does not but if you

No it does not but if you understand fully and objectively i have a hard time seeing a person disagreeing with this being at least possible. What i have explained is very clear and basically no matter how much evidence and how strong of argument you have a religious person view is very hard to change and that is what i would equate this to for a person who disagrees and i honestly thought about this objectively and openly for a long time and the facts that this idea is actually ahead of mainstream science is why i look for objective critics but they are hard to find.

chimp3's picture
Zero: "I have a hard time

Zero: "I have a hard time seeing a person disagreeing...."

Oh really! Your posts reveal a very active imagination. If you apply the same creative process that you use to invent your sky fairy I am sure you can imagine many ways others would disagree with you.

Drewcgs11's picture
Out of what i said that is

Out of what i said that is what you choose to respond to?

Sorry to break it to you but everything that you do or think is imagination.

chimp3's picture
Everything I do is

Everything I do is imagination? Now that is nonsense. Eating and digesting my breakfast is imagination?

Drewcgs11's picture
Lol you think about eating

Lol you think about eating all the time and there are millions of types of dishes that was just a imagination. A few examples are pizza, hamburger, chicken nuggets, hot dog (i can go on forever but you get my point)were just imagination before invented. digesting is also imagination the person who invented the toliet that was and idea he cam up with using his imagination so you see this proves that i was right and you can throw another example out there for me to debunk but if you were wise you would think before you write because i know you do not have the intellect of a chimp you I wish you would act like it and think.

Sir Random's picture
"are millions of types of

"are millions of types of dishes that was just a imagination. A few examples are pizza, hamburger, chicken nuggets, hot dog (i can go on forever but you get my point)were just imagination before invented"

Once they were invented, however, they left the relm of imagination and entered the relm of reality. Your argument is egregiously invalid.

Drewcgs11's picture
My point is that they have to

My point is that they have to be thought of first before invented and imagination was apart of the creation process.

chimp3's picture
Zero: "My point is that they

Zero: "My point is that they have to be thought of first before invented and imagination was apart of the creation process."

Rearranging matter into tasty dishes is totally different than arranging fantasies into gods. Entirely different processes. One is called cooking. The other is called making up bullshit.

Drewcgs11's picture
God is just a word idk why

God is just a word idk why you feel so taboo about this word. I am pass the word but what the word represents that is what i have tried to explain that god represents something that always exits that does not subscribe to the laws of our universe a multiverse and energy can also have those same traits which is why i say it is at least possible for those words to be interchangeable are you telling me this isn't a strong argument.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.