Atheism is the default position that we do not have an answer to the "where did we come from" question. Theism posits that the answer is "God". If anyone is to be accused of saying, "stop trying to figure it out", it's theism, which provides an answer which conveniently doesn't require any more effort.
Atheism doesn't say that we shouldn't try to figure it out, it simply doesn't accept the easy answer that "God did it".
The question of "why are we here" is a separate question entirely. Before you can ask "why are we here", you need to establish "does our existence require a reason"?
That's probably a statement which you can't back up tbh. "Scientist" covers a lot of disciplines and could reasonably be used to include medical doctors, computer programmers, and so forth. I think the fairest way to say it is that the majority of scientists do not accept that "God did it" and continue researching the facts, even those that would claim to be theist in their outlook.
Philologos, is this another thread where you make a fool of yourself?
His catchphrase is "that doesn't make sense to me", so maybe...
Not definitive proof, but here is evidence to support my statement.
I can't link to the original Nature article because you need to sign in, but it's here from stephenjaygould.org.
Only in the same way that the passage of a droplet of water down your window is completely random and directionless. While there is a "random" element to the path it will take... the result is constrained by other factors like gravity and hence no amount of randomness will make the droplet go upwards.
Similarly Evolution has a "random" element indeed but the direction that can take has many constraints and what those constraints are, how they work and what they result in would be what the Theory of Natural Selection is about.
Depends what you mean by "outside force" I guess, but it certainly does not indicate in any way that that "outside force" had to be an intelligence as so many seem to think. Nothing about life or evolution on this planet is in contradiction with entropy.
And I am saying you owe me 10 million euro.
There is a chasm of difference between saying something and evidencing something it seems. So alas I likely will not be getting my money soon. Nor are we likely to be getting evidence of your god soon either I warrant?
That is entirely dependent on what you mean by "god" and what you think the evidence for "god" is.
Proving evolution does not disprove "god" generally because there are too many definitions of what people think "god" is going around.
The fact is however if you think that there is a god solely because you inserted a god of the gaps into how life arose on Earth... the Theory of Evolution is a problem for you.
You for example have never offered support for your "god" EVER except to claim that it "makes sense" to you that there is a god. As if what "makes sense" to you means squat.
Clearly a position so weak, dilute, baseless, meaningless and devoid of anything even resembling commitment is not going to be assailed by Evolution. Or anything else for that matter.
That is an outright, barefaced, transparent lie. Worse, you well know it too. After a display of dishonesty THAT crass you would do well to retreat from the thread crying like you usually do and find another one to enter and run from later.
Do you have any idea what's going on in physics or cosmology these days?
"Stop trying" is what happens when -- as you've done -- you read your holybook and say "oh, that sounds nice; it'll do for me" and you abandon any further effort.
I'm not seeing the connection. Seems a misdirection.
With almost as many interpretations as people who read it. Perfect message?
Is truth subjective? Objective?
Atheism doesn't say anything. Some atheists will discuss religion, some will not so atheists saying _____ is a misnomer. I'm interested in what science has to say. If you are referring to the first cause, that anything that begins to exist has a cause, then there are two issues.
1) The universe could have always existed.
2) "Everything that begins to exist needs a cause. Except where it suits my argument" styled thinking.
Like what? Pascal's Wager?
No it doesn't. In fact it's the bible that says stop trying... and just accept a fairytale!
I think you're severely confused about Atheism.
Produce one, tiny, microscopic, tidbit of evidence that supports that claim.
He's knows perfectly well what it means, he's lying to himself.
As I said before I lack a belief in god. Im a follower of science and evolution. Im an agnostic as I dont know if there is a god or not and in my opinion all good scientists should be agnostic to all things as yet unproven. I lack a positive belief in god and I think biology and the universe can be explained be science but I am not going to waste time by attacking people who have a belief in god.
Science for me is brilliant as it has the potential to explain everything and give us mastery over our enviroment and ourselves. The only problem thing Ill say is that science is still subject to dogma now and again as is any subject with a human element. Science is not immune to fads and popularity contests. Some people within science believe that science is decided by popular opinion. Im not using this to descridit science as science is my passion Im just highlighting the need to be objective about science and the need to minimise human belief from science. Previously in the past scientists have been ridiculed for trying to promote the existence of the mountain Gorilla, the biochemical pathways for photosynthesis, soft inheritence, homo erectus and a range of other things only to be proved right.
The starting point in science is we dont know and to me that is wonderful but there are too many scientists who start of thinking they "know". Another problem I have in science are the people who are twisting the meaning of skepticisim and simply promoting cynicism. A lot of current skeptics are guilty of dismissing things out of hand and in my mind thier not skeptics but cynics and offer nothing to science.
Could you give a few examples of people and things they've said so that we can understand what you mean?
Perhaps in the sense that someone in one particular field will trust the scientific method is being used properly in fields outside their experience. Is this what you mean?
Where is it you get this impression? I have seen nothing to give me that impression, and if this is so I'd certainly like to see evidence for it. Also, for the remark about promoting cynicism...
None of this is the problem of science but the problem of humans. There will always be egos, popularity contests, cliques, those convinced of their own powers, skills, intelligence, conclusions and more.
The point about science itself that differentiates it from other realms of discourse it that it is built to attempt to counteract all these things. It is a realm of discourse where one is not only awarded points for proving the work of others wrong, but for proving ones own work wrong.
Even when a scientific proposition should be welcomed because it affirms biases however it is not. I can think of no greater example of this than the work of the late Lynn Margulis... who brought us the idea of symbiogenesis which shows that the reason for Mitochondrial DNA is that in our Evolutionary History there was a joining of Prokaryote cells.
These conclusions are NOW a massive support of Evolutionary Theory and have shed massive amounts of light on our past. Does that mean because it was so great for Evolution that all the Evolution Scientists went "YAY" and just accepted it?
Not a bit of it. Lynn underwent not years but decades of work, study, writing papers and books, Monography and speeches for over 30 years before her ideas trickled into the curriculum as a mildly controversial but generally accepted Theory.
Having been lauded with praise for that work was everything she wrote then accepted? No, she is recognized as having some pretty barmy and evidenceless hypothesis too.
Science is a human endeavor and as such will never be entirely free of egos, cliques and contests. It is however the best tool I know for minimizing those forms of impact from our human imperfections.
It simply sounds to me that you have issue anecdotally with individual scientists and not science itself. Though until you provide direct examples as requested by another user above I can not really muse more on it.
Again, you have dodged my point. If you ignore the bible and look for other evidence, there is none. On the other hand, if you look at the bible and investigate it's "claims" then you still have none. Zero. And I honestly don't mean to offend you here but I actually smiled to myself when I read you using the term "rational approach" above. You're convinced of its truth, I'm convinced it's the biggest selling sci-fi book of all time. Bigger than Harry Potter even...
I understand atheism doesn't make sense to you, I think that goes without saying at this point. I'm not even going to address the whole "Atheism says stop trying" thing as plenty of others already have said it better than me. Can I ask you, if the "huge problem" of where we came from was answered in full tomorrow by science, would you then reject god? Would that be enough proof or would you move on to the next level? ie. "That explanation would not be possible without god"
I'm not suggesting you personally are not enjoying life, apologies if it came across like that. You seem like a happy individual and even though there may be some slightly aggressive undertones in this thread (myself included) you still keep it civil. For me, that is the only part of religion in general that works. But it also reinforces my belief that christianity is an old set of rules, written by man and adjusted with the times over a 3500 year period with the intention of keeping people in check.
That is not the only reason I reject god/JC. I consciously make an effort to be nice to people and don't need the fear of hell to make me do it. My parents simply raised me with a good moral compass. My folks were born into completely different religions (and their relationship was frowned upon because of this) so religion was never really brought into our home and for that I am thankful.
My point above is this: If there is a god and all my life I haven't believed in him/followed him/worshiped him yet still led a decent life and was nice to people, I'm sure St Pete will swing that gate open for me. If there is no god and spent my life worshiping him, then my dying thoughts would be "what a waste of time". I think most religions in their current format encourage people to wait for this amazing afterlife and to strive for that afterlife. If there's none, then it's lights out and what a waste...