Athiests - Who cares

Peist2007 wrote: »

My argument is that little is admittedly known about this guy's life. So i would then surmise that little is known about his beliefs and whether same beliefs came about through absolute devotion and unwavering belief or because peace and patronage would be easier to come by. Who knows?

It says in the article though that he was a devout Muslim? Do you question everything Dawkins absence of belief with the same veracity or do you simply accept what suits your narrative? The point is he was a devout Muslim who devised the scientific method we understand is used today. In fact much of our modern science has it's origins in the Middle East, so it was hardly just one person. The early Egyptians for example were also accomplished engineers and architects, and need we really talk about how much the Ancient Greeks contributed to science, despite the whole Gods thing? Hell, even here in Ireland the Pagans came up with Newgrange!

Can you point to any science living side by side with religion in a secular context? Or in modern times?

I gave an example earlier with my attendance at The Young Scientist Exhibition the weekend just gone - above each of the projects were the names of the school, and the names indicated the schools were for the most part religious ethos schools.

Ps. When they say "we know little about his life" it means they dont know about his life. I dont like Richard Dawkins but, and this is crucial, he lives in 2015 and therefore has infinitely more scientific information to form his opinion than your friend from the 13th century. Plus i am sure his life is documented with easily verifiable facts. If only there was a Wikipedia in the 13th century.

If you'd prefer more modern, there are many prolific scientists to choose from, who have contributed far more to our understanding of the universe while Richard Dawkins isn't even out of the starting blocks. Albert Einstein for instance was a pantheist. Richard Dawkins is more well known for his rabble rousing anti-theism, than he is for his contributions to our understanding of the universe.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but pantheism has little to do with god worshipping, and more to do with a spiritual oneness, you could call it a 'god' for ease of wording but it is most definitely not a 'god' in the way the catholic church teaches. more akin to spiritualism than religion.

Well Catholicism (nearly typed 'Cod' there, Freudian slip ) is a monotheistic religion, whereas pantheism, you're right, isn't a religion, but the ideology is based on acknowledging the possible existence of deities -

pan·the·ism

\ˈpan(t)-thē-ˌi-zəm\
noun




1 :a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

2 :the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also :toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

It's still not congruent with scientific study, but it doesn't claim to be either, so it's never going to be as big a target as organised religions for anti-theists.

The reason I make the distinction between atheists and anti-theists is because the vast majority of people who identify as atheist have no inclination to bother with, nor are they bothered by religion, whereas anti-theists on the other hand are actively opposed to religion.

harrymagina wrote: »

Had a friend going around telling the whole local pub he is an athiest after a few jars. I know another Athiest who loves telling people that he is an athiest and going on about how he has been arguing about his wife about baptising the child and keeps bringing it up. I don't care if you are an athiest just please stay quiet about it! How are your athiest friends?

I believe people like this are just looking for an argument where they know they'll come out on top

SpaceTime wrote: »

Attempts to start an Android vs iPhone debate and runs...

Choose your side very carefully. The Atheism and Agnosticism forum already held this debate and one side was banned.

Just saying. . .:pac:

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

There are many many things in science which are more or less accepted purely on theory and there is no experiment which can (or certainly which can be designed at this moment in time) to prove them. Not being able to observe something experimentally does not mean its false.

This isn't M-theory though, is it? Assessing whether praying for someone else works or not isn't really any different to a standard observational medical study. In fact it has been studied and, surprise surprise, the more rigorous efforts carried out so far haven't resulted in any significant findings - though research in the area is admittedly sparse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

I can see prayer having a role as a form of meditation or a coping mechanism for the individual carrying it out but I'm pretty cocksure that it doesn't elicit an affect on the physical world. If it did I'd actually find it a bit grotesque, the fact that God might spare the life of your drunken, gluttonous uncle after a wholly self-inflicted heart attack, while letting some African kid see his village slaughtered before he's dragged off to become a child soldier.

EDIT: what's the theory of prayer, anyway?

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

This is incorrect. The theory of evolution is a fact in so far as anything at all is fact. A scientific theory is an explanation for a phenomenon that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed. Should not be confused with the common use of the word "theory".

timetogo wrote: »

If you're not sure of something you can look it up you know rather than guessing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Unless I'm missing something particularly semantic lads, the above is just a re-wording of my post with the bits that provide context snipped out?

You're both being picky for the sake of being picky, and not actually adding anything of substance or value to the discussion?

That would be good because Darwins theories have nothing to do about the origins of life. They're about evolution. The hint is in the name.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life?

Fair enough. No more context for that man!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unless I'm missing something particularly semantic lads, the above is just a re-wording of my post with the bits that provide context snipped out?

You're both being picky for the sake of being picky, and not actually adding anything of substance or value to the discussion?

Not at all, you claimed that theories are called theories because they lack evidence and have not been proven as fact, when the reality is the exact opposite. Theories have been proven with evidence and repeated testing and are accepted as correct.

What you are describing is a hypothesis. When a hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory.

This is not semantics - your definition of a theory was completely incorrect.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Not at all, you claimed that theories are called theories because they lack evidence and have not been proven as fact, when the reality is the exact opposite. Theories have been proven with evidence and repeated testing and are accepted as correct.

What you are describing is a hypothesis. When a hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory.

This is not semantics - your definition of a theory was completely incorrect.

I know what a hypothesis is, and I do understand the difference. A hypothesis is a proposition, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life. Evidence is then gathered to examine this hypothesis and a theory is formed - either there is, or there isn't, and until it can be proven as fact, it remains a widely accepted theory, until it can be either proven or disproven as fact. "Widely accepted as correct" IS semantics.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know what a hypothesis is, and I do understand the difference. A hypothesis is a proposition, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life. Evidence is then gathered to examine this hypothesis and a theory is formed - either there is, or there isn't, and until it can be proven as fact, it remains a widely accepted theory, until it can be either proven or disproven as fact. "Widely accepted as correct" IS semantics.

Suggesting that things are either theory or fact shows that you don't understand. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Theories don't graduate into facts, they are made up of them, they explain them.

Organisms change over time, for example. We call this evolution. Data gives you the fact. Theory gives you the how, and the why. Experimentation proves both.

A theory isn't a theory because it hasn't yet become fact - it will always be a theory. Darwin's theories are empirically correct - we're not waiting on anything to prove that.

It's not semantics, you're incorrect.