Athiesm has it's faith in Science but Science is constantly changing and Science will never find out the origin of life and universe.
So athiesm is more like an incomplete belief system which keeps changing but never finds real answers.
2007-12-20 05:34:10 · 45 answers · asked by Mahal 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
not with God it doesnt go down too well lol.
God bless
2007-12-20 05:37:02 · answer #1 · answered by Lebaykal 5 · 0⤊ 17⤋
That is a rather uninformed statement as you do not put faith in science and science is self correcting by design. Yes, as we learn more, science "changes" to reflect the additional information, and as time passes we have an extremely good view of how many things work. Saying that science will never find the origins of life and the universe is your opinion and not a proven fact.
Atheism and Science are not belief systems. Atheism is just not believing in any gods, and science is a methodology to determine facts.
Contrast this with the 1000's of religions all claiming to show the true god(s), without any evidence to support their claims. Take the Bible for example, it has no evidence to support the creation, the flood, or anything to do with the exodus. The only evidence it has is that locations and civilizations are accurate.
So why would one choose to believe the Bible's stories over any other religion's stories? Or to put it another way, we know the Greek gods are man made, and there is no evidence to support that God is anything different from them.
2007-12-20 05:47:59 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, that's not entirely correct. You are accurate in pointing out that conclusions drawn through science about the universe ARE constantly changing, but that's a result of the nature of science itself. Science is based on the principle of peer review: meaning if one scientist draws a conclusion from certain data, other scientists must attack those conclusions from every angle to find any contradictions or inconsistencies. If contrary evidence is verified which makes the original conclusion impossible, then the theory must be discarded or revised to account for the contradictory evidence.
What that all amounts to is the notion that science leads us to the best possible answer based on all evidence we have available. Yes, the conclusions constantly change, but presumably they change only to conclusions that more accurately describe our world.
If that makes atheism an "incomplete" belief system, so be it. I'm more comfortable with a belief system that's "incomplete" than a belief system that's rigid and unbending even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
2007-12-20 05:44:22 · answer #3 · answered by Mr.Samsa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wait, wait, whoah.
First you think that believing in something that can be tested and adapted to fit current best evidence (science) is FAITH? How wrong you are.
Second, because you think that science will never find out the origin of life and the universe (even though we've already created DNA out of nonliving material in laboratory experiments AND as we speak there is a lab called CERN producing singularities in an underground particle accelerator in Switzerland) you think that a suitable belief system is "Magic Man Done It?"
How do you come to the conclusion that because you're personally afraid of a constantly adapting understanding of the world, that somehow believing that a mystical and totally unprovable sky-daddy did everything that you are incapable of understanding? That is so uneducated. You really sound foolish, my friend. I feel kind of sorry for you.
The way science keeps changing to fit new evidence is its strength, and precisely why rational people put their belief in it rather than in the mysoginistic, brutal beliefs of people who lived half a world away, thousands of years ago.
And by the way, if you think that your faith is unchangeable and never shifts to fit current sensibilities, then why don't you beat your disobedient children to death? God and Jesus both expressly tell you to do so, yet nobody does anymore, and if they do they are shunned by everybody, including the religious. Why is that? Think about it for a minute, and then tell me whether your faith is unchanging, and whether you still think it's a good thing for a belief system to be inflexible when modern information is gained.
2007-12-20 05:41:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
First, atheism is not tied to science.
Science has shown that all religious texts have huge flaws in them.
I have no faith in science. Zero.
What I do have is trust. But that is because science has shown itself to be trustworthy. When new information shows that it is wrong it quickly admits it and corrects itself.
When was the last time religion did that?
Most atheists have a complete (non) belief system. Simply put, if we get some evidence that a deity exists then we will believe in it, until then all religions are equally invalid.
Why is it that this is a normal position for unicorns, Osiris, dragons and Zeus, but can not be applied to Vishnu, Jehovah, Jesus or Allah?
The atheist is consistent - without proof it is all mythology - this is a much stronger position than the theist who claims that their version, without proof, is Truth, while all other versions without proof are mythology.
2007-12-20 05:47:00 · answer #5 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you're missing the point. Atheism isn't about science, it's simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. And as a polar opposite of religion, I'd say it's an equally strong position...
Also, science isn't supposed to give all the answers, it's a process, not a solution. It's religion that states facts, and keeps stating them even when reality disagrees; science works with what we know, improving constantly.
2007-12-20 05:43:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's as strong as any argument out there. Although those that say "Atheism is not faith based or a religion," is to argue on a foundation like saying I choose not to make a choice. An Atheist argument would be more soundly put if the ones trying to defend it understood what constitutes, by definition "faith" and "religion". Atheism is just another belief system grouped in with every other religion out there. And bottom line like everyone else is that "they are right and They, are wrong."
2007-12-20 05:50:48 · answer #7 · answered by 2U2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Atheism isn't a belief system.
Science may indeed find the answers. Just because we don't currently have the answers does not mean we should stop asking the questions. If people had traditionally followed that line of thinking, we would still be living in caves.
I am okay admitting that there are some things I do not know. It would be arrogant for me to claim that I do. I do not need to assign that which I cannot explain to some myth in the sky to be able to sleep at night. Only by admitting that we do not know will we continue to progress.
Edit:
Mahal, get some new material, will you? Your repetitiveness is getting boring.
2007-12-20 05:42:54 · answer #8 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have our "faith" in science? That's news to me! Science is the process of bettering our understanding of the world around us using principled thinking. Religion is the process of believing that we understand because we've made up some easy answers. "God did it," "It's all part of God's plan," and "It's not for us to understand," all come to mind as things I've both heard and, myself, said during my brief stint as a Christian. No critical thinking required!
Most Atheists pursue truth. So does science--and so far, it's been quite good at finding it. So it's of little surprise that we focus more on scientific thought processes than we do on what a pretentious man in a glorified bathrobe tells us in church.
And by the way... neither scientists nor Atheists shy away from saying, "I don't know" once in a while. Admitting a lack of knowledge is the first step to FINDING knowledge. Simply saying "God did it" slams the door on any further exploration.
As far as the constantly-changing part... you haven't studied religion's history very well, have you? You are aware that there have been well over 2,000 recognized and worshiped Gods in recorded history, right? You're just as Atheist as I am. I only extend my disbelief to one more God than you do.
2007-12-20 05:53:37 · answer #9 · answered by writersblock73 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why will atheism never find the real answers? Science changes when it finds that its theories and explanations don't fit the facts. When the theory matches the facts, and predicts what will happen next in a system, we keep it. By this process, we keep getting closer and closer to ultimate truths. Religion, on the other hand, ignores the facts, and sticks to the old explanations regardless. How can that lead you to ultimate truth?
To answer your question: Yes, atheism is the stronger position of the two. It is grounded in reality.
2007-12-20 05:40:23 · answer #10 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you, it seems to be based on something that is nothing more than a theory, and one that is constantly changing. You can't, or at least shouldn't have stationary beliefs on something so flexible and arguable.
But I guess you could use that same argument for Christians.
Either way, I find Athiesm to be a weak argument in denying Christ.
2007-12-20 05:40:35 · answer #11 · answered by bla 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋