So my understanding of Atheism is.....?

Question

Focus on that brick over there in the corner....it sure looks real, it feels real, my senses say it's real....it must be real!

Focus on God....I can't see it, I don't feel it, and my senses do not sense it.....it must be a fraud.

Okay, that sounds about right.

From an atheist's point of view (at least to my understanding) Science proves everything. It explains what we are, what we aren't, what a brick is, and what God isn't.

My question is, did I get this right? Is this how atheism works? Because if it is, I already see some major flaws. If you people hold belief in science to a great extent (like most atheists claim) then I am sorry for you. Science is inconsistant. Nonetheless, it changes all the time. Science today was way different than science 500 years ago. Science in the future will be way different than science today.

Putting belief in science is ridicuolous. According to science, bumblebees can't fly, but I guess science is worth believing in anyways.

I'm not really going to say anything to most of you people who posted meaningless words, but I will say that the world should be agnostic. It's the most logical, and obviously the most convincing. Simple.

Answer 1

No, you're generalizing science and atheism. Atheism is just a lack of belief in God, it is completely independant of science.

If science proved without a doubt that God existed, then there would still be atheists - they just wouldn't be very scientific ones.

My parents take no interest in science or logic, but they are atheists, they do not believe in God because they are skeptical. If there was scientific proof of God's existance, they would probably refuse to believe the evidence until they saw it with their own eyes.

Even though atheism or agnosticism is the default position of scientists, you don't need to study science to be an atheist, you can be skeptical of everything including religion.

Answer 2

Science by definition is when someone tests and demonstrates something in order to prove a specific theory. If someone disproves what was taught in the past then a new theory is made which might have been considered science but was not. Atheism is not science because it cannot be proved. It is a religion like any other religion because a person must believe in no God. If you put your trust in what scientists say happens then how can you know if it's true? That's what evolutionists are doing to kids today. They make it seem like it's science but it's not really science. For instance they believe dinosaurs lived millions of year ago which cannot be proved. A T-Rex dinosaur bone was found that had red blood cells present. Most people should know that blood cells do not last long. To test this try using a chicken bone and stick it into the ground and dig it up after a couple of years and no blood cells should be found. Most people believe the earth is millions of years old and think it fact but no proof has been given to support it. If you want to hear some proof for Creation that disproves in the lies of Evolution go to drdino.com and click on downloads and listen. From this you will understand that science disproves Evolution and supports Creation.

Answer 3

Religion, like science, changes all the time as well. A hisorical review of most religions show huge changes in doctrine over time. I think it would be hard to show that religion is somehow more stable than science. The difference as i see it is that science changes because of differences in understanding, for the most part. The scientific method remains remarkably stable over the years. What we learn from it changes, and that's positive. If you had to be stuck with what you learned 2000 years ago as being the truth scientifically, then advances in every science would never take place. you would simply have to find different methods to prove what you already knew.

I don't think you really have the essence of atheism, though, in your example of the brick. The essence of atheism as I understand it is that we do not, as humans, have to rely on a mystical, spiritual, supernatural, or religious explanation for things we don't understand. I think that's the heart of it.

When humans don't understand something they observe in nature, there has been an overwhelming desire to attribute it to the supernatural...creation is a good example. There is an incomplete understanding of how life on the earth got to where it is today. There are scientific theories, which are in many ways supported by observable data. Then there are creation stories that are different from religion to religion.

The atheist would say, "just because we don't fully understand this, we don't have to come up with a story that is supernatural in nature to explain it. " An atheist would probably assert that we need to learn more, apply more scientific study, and eventually, we will learn enough to satisfy ourselves...or we won't be able to answer the question in the foreseeable future. The crux is that belief that you don't have to explain you don't understand yet with a "god" figure that gives an answer.

Recall from history that many religious people have had various explanations for phenomena that have subsequently been explained through science...for example, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun was a scientific discovery, and was at one time a discovery punishable by death from the Church.

I think your understanding of atheism treats it like it's another kind of faith in a supernatural being, but science doesn't fit that definition very well.

One last thing...science does not believe bumblebees can't fly. That is a kind of urban legend. You can check the link below for some info on it.

Answer 4

Think about atheism this way, you are an atheist to all gods except for one. There are thousands of gods, myths, spirits etc, that would would consider as non-existent. An atheist takes it one step further and sees no reason that your god should exist either.

Science is not something that you believe, it is either fact supported by evidence or it isn't. True science changes as we learn more and it is self correcting. Religion on the other hand is often tied to a book or books that were written in the distant past and show no understanding of human rights or alternate cultures.

I'd also say that religion is way different today than it was 500 years ago and vastly more different than it was 1950 years ago.

Answer 5

Sorry, you got it wrong. We believe in the brick because we can perceive that it does exist, so there is a logical reason for us to accept it exists. We do not believe in god because there is absolutely nothing to support the belief that god exists. There is nothing that you or any theist can present that has the most logical explanation being that god exists. We don't say that science answers everything, but we do say that any legitimate answers come from science, not fantasy. Yes, science changes, but those changes come as a result of increasing knowledge and understanding. Religion doesn't change, because it resists knowledge and understanding.

By the way, if you end your question by stating a myth is fact (Science does not and did not say that bumblebees can't fly), isn't a good way to make yourself look good.

Answer 6

Focus on that brick over there in the corner....it sure looks real, it feels real, my senses say it's real....it must be real!

Focus on God....I can't see it, I don't feel it, and my senses do not sense it.....it must be a fraud.

Wrong. You're confusing evidence for perception. A posterori dosen't work well, even in physics.

You're also missing what atheism means. Simply put, a belief in no deities. Nothing more. Science is not a tool of atheists, it's just a study.

EDIT: And yes, according to science Bumblebees can fly. It's because their bodies produce a special kind of sugar to supply energy to make the wings move at an exaggerated speed.

Answer 7

Well, being atheist doesn't actually say anything about why there is the lack of belief. As for science, many atheists do hold science to be a source of knowledge. To me, it isn't my only source, but the best source.

Just because science changes, doesn't mean we should disregard it and believe something with no science. Sure science might be wrong, but that doesn't make me belief something that is wrong.

Answer 8

"Focus on God..."

Well, you screwed it up there already.

"According to science, bumblebees can't fly, but I guess science is worth believing in anyways".

Science doesn't say that bumblebees can't fly. Doesn't the truth matter to you at all? Lying reflects poorly on your beliefs.

"Science is inconsistant. Nonetheless, it changes all the time. Science today was way different than science 500 years ago. Science in the future will be way different than science today"

So you believe that it's better to stick with false beliefs than to try to find true ones? That sure doesn't say much for your morality or courage, or, well, for your character in general.

It does explain your username, though.

Answer 9

Last things first:

No one "believes in science". Science is a tool, not a religion.

Bumblebees can fly according to science. That's been well-known for some time now.

Science changes when there is new evidence. Old theories are changed or discarded when there is new evidence. Science, unlike religion, is self-correcting. When something turns out to be wrong, scientists do not waste time defending it.

Science "proves" nothing. "Proof" exists only in mathmatics and alcohol.

Your initial assumption is as inaccurate as the rest of your rant.

Answer 10

Almost. If you are the only one who sees the brick then you still don't believe, even if it looks real, feels real, and your senses say it's real. In order to be sure it is real, your observation must match the observations of a contemporary consensus of peers. Otherwise you are considered "insane".

Lets say you and the consensus decide it is real. Experience of the brick will stand as real until some time in the future, when there is no longer strong enough evidence to prove it ever was. Once that happens, it will have never existed.