What is Digg?793 Comments
- rburgess3, on 10/10/2007, -27/+223Further, science is based upon verifiability. I can trust the word of a scientist because I can verify his claims. Religions OTOH, rely on the fallacy of appeal to authority, and their claims cannot be independently verified.
- qwerty1024, on 10/10/2007, -15/+121I dont remember who said it be...
If Atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color - AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -8/+79"Atheism is nothing more than an assumption of the total absence of a higher power(s) based on nothing." I'm afraid that you're mistaken. Everyone is an atheist when they're born. You have no concept of gods or religions until someone else tells you about them, and it's still up to you whether or not you believe what you're being told. Atheists are the ones who said, "this god stuff doesn't make very much sense. Are you sure you're not just ***** me? Got any evidence? No? Then I'm not going to start believing."
----------
"I find the atheist mindset a depressing mix of egotistic arrogance and closed mindedness" Arrogance like being told that your lack of belief is wrong and possibly evil, and that you're going to suffer for all eternity unless you start believing the 'right' thing? Closed-mindedness like refusing to accept any evidence that might possibly challenge your worldview, and actively *rejecting* observations that clash with what you've already decided must be true? Now tell me, who's arrogant and close-minded? - BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -15/+83Atheism is the lack of a belief in some sort of god. It is the default state. You are the one doing all the assuming.
- SqueakyMouse, on 10/10/2007, -6/+71One fundamental difference between science and religion is that scientific text is constantly updated whereas holy scripture remains constant. Historically many scientists' conjectures have been inaccurate but when there is sufficient evidence to reject them, scientists cease to advocate them. In contrast, the religious community refuse to change any holy text under any circumstances.
There might well be many people who blindly believe what scientists tell them, much as the pious man blindly believes his priest. The difference is that the former will have an ever changing view of the world which best represents the evidence available to the scientists. - nairanvac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+43Then you aren't an atheist. Atheism means that you believe in no kind of divine being.
- robot1122, on 10/10/2007, -3/+41Think of science as a tool. It isn't something to believe in; it's something to use.
- skinjester, on 10/10/2007, -4/+41so true. The significant difference between science and faith is that science is at least disprovable. That's a virtue not a drawback.
- cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -10/+47There is no gold in my pocket. (1)
I do not have to share the belief that there is no gold in my pocket to know there is no gold in my pocket, because every time I reach into my pocket and do not find gold there serves to reinforce the understanding that there is no gold in my pocket.
Atheists do not have a belief in "no god", they have an understanding that nothing in their lives gives an indication of the existence of such a higher being, such as suddenly finding gold in a pocket where there had been none before. A-Theist is not an opposing belief (Anti-Theist), it is the lack of belief.
(1) Scientifically speaking, there are trace amounts of gold atoms in the fabric and contents of my pockets, but those amounts are negligible enough to be considered non-existent on the scale of expecting a tangible or noticeable benefit from simply reaching into my pocket. - johnn11238, on 10/10/2007, -4/+39Burden of proof lies on the affirmative
- subscriber, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36"Science isn't verifiable..."
True, but it's actually more correct to say that scientific theories are falsifiable. That's what make Science believable. Religious beliefs are not falsifiable, they rely on faith alone. - Azimuth1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35I'm an atheist, in that I positively assert that no god exists, but that doesn't mean that I claim to know with absolute certainty that no god exists. It's possible to believe something and accept that you may be wrong. I accept that I may be wrong (but obviously I don't think I am), but I'm still an atheist.
- browwiw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33How do I know there are no unicorns? Because I am a ***** adult. That's also why I know there are no gods.
- SmokedL, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34Nonsense.
Atheists discount the existence of god in the same way we discount the existence of Santa Claus. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a god, and without such evidence belief in a god is irrational. Just as belief in Santa Claus is.
Atheism is a faith the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. - Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -9/+33Sir, I must ask if you are agnostic towards magical flying unicorns?
Surely, we cannot know for whether they exist or not - even if there is no evidence for them, and they seem to actively defy the laws of physics, it would take a search of every square inch of the known universe to disprove them.
Therefore, of course, we must take refuge in the unknowability of the magical flying unicorns, and take no stand on their existence, even when people come to force our schools to teach that this unicorn flies around giving people magical dreams, alongside theories of neuroscience and psychology. - browwiw, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27*****, more like.
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Okay. Go find me a unicorn.
If you bring one back, then go find me a God. - CongoJoe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22or the other variations on that line:
If Atheism is a religion than Off is a TV Channel
If Atheism is a religion than NOT playing cards is a hobby - Smills, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23You are not correctly using the word "faith". Yes, it is likely that many of our scientists will be proven wrong in the future, however, what non-religious people believe has proof, and we do not just "have faith" as you put it, in things that are not independently verifiable. Religious faith is "this old book says it is true so it must be".
- hiscity, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24"We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus)
"We can not pretend to offer proofs. Proof is an idol before who the pure mathematician tortures himself: In physics, we are generally content to sacrifice before the lesser shrine of plausibility." (A. Eddington, "Defense of Mysticism")
"Ultimately, proof must remain subjective, for the amount of data necessary to convince one person of the validity of a theory may be insufficient to convince another." (Kirby and Goodpaster, "Thinking" 4th ed. p. 234) - kebwi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Another variant I've heard:
If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22@Ligeia: That is a retarded concept. Scientific belief is based on a presupposition based on Naturalism(that everything in nature is measurable and based on natural laws). It is not faith since this presupposition has been show to be true again and again. Using your blue sky analogy, we understand and can explain how and why it is blue and this rules/model can be shown to function all time. The fairy model does not meet this criteria.
- Gerfervonbob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Atheist's recognize that there is no way of knowing for sure If there is or inst a god, but that the chance/evidence is so minuscule that there is simply no point in believing in god.
- takamalak, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23You spell comically.
- ChessPieceFace, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19And powerful. Falsifiability is not a weakness of Science, falsifiability is its strength.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18The definition of faith is a belief in something without evidence or inspite of evidence. Scientific belief or knowledge is considered justified true belief. It is verifiable and repeatable and consistent.
- bIuebonics, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18you fail to understand science. if one can take an experiment and recreate and take measurements with the best of their ability and find a particular theory to hold, then one can accept that theory as probable to a degree. if measuring techniques enhance and that same experiment is repeated and found to be slightly inaccurate and a better theory holds, then you can assume the first theory is a specialized theory and the new theory to be a general theory or you can assume that the first theory was just plain wrong. nobody holds faith in science; people only believe something to be the best explanation for the current observable evidence which is NOT faith.
- brycelb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16I would argue that "Science" is never a leap of faith. No Leap of Faith is required to state that God does not exist till someone "PROVES" it does. Dis-proof is not required. Faith is belief in the un-proven. There is a distinct difference.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19It is a faith if you get to the point where you say that there is no possible way that unicorns exist. You can think believers in unicorns are idiots and I'd agree with you, but you can not prove them 100% wrong.
As far as I see it, agnosticism is the only logical belief system. I don't see how you can be a strong atheist or a weak atheist, you either are an atheist or you aren't one. If you aren't 100% an atheist that means you aren't 100% sure, and you fall in the agnostic category. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and you obviously did not read the famn article. Modern scientifc theories are based on probability. There is no such thing as 100% proof in science. Science's greatest strength is its ability to adapt and change. Atheist do not 'defend theories to the death'. Please name them. We reject theist(such as Creationist) who attack science with no basis except for their delusions.
- fusama, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24science != atheism
I can't figure out why so many people think that religion and scientific thinking are mutually exclusive. - Azimuth1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14How is not choosing to believe one way or the other (agnosticism) living by faith?
- stevejobs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Gravity isn't a faith either..
- rburgess3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Here's a good operational definition of burden of proof from Wikipedia: "..."burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it."
I can think of no claim more bold than "Gods exist." - ellimist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Wow. Another person who hasn't read the article.
Almost every atheismisfaith argument I have seen in the comments is addressed in the article. - Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Spot on...
There is a point if you want to control people though and amass your own personal wealth and power. - Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14So I have 'faith', that there is no Easter Bunny?
- bIuebonics, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11@SocialPoison ... then you seem to fail to understand logic.
- Epik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Oxford Dictionary
atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun - the belief that God does not exist.
NOT "the belief that God CAN NOT exist". It's very possible that there is some sort of god or gods, but because there is no evidence of it, we can't help but come to the conclusion that god does not exist.
Faith is really just hope. And praying is simply wishing. Yes Jesus seems like a great guy, and dying and rejoining all our friends and family in heaven is a very comforting thought. But I will not lie to myself and say that's what I believe... what I hope, perhaps, but not what I believe. - Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13I am an atheist.
I agree that there is some chance that God exists.
It would, of course, require that almost every single scientific observation is almost every field be incorrect, so as to allow god to function with no regard to the laws of physics and natural functioning (things like conservation of energy, big bang theory, second law of thermodynamics, speciesism, evolution, etc. would all need to be false to allow for His existence).
It would also require the existence of an entity for which no evidence exists.
Despite all this, however, I do agree that there is some possibility, however minute, for the existence of God.
I simply feel the probability is small enough to be safely dismissed without too much worry. - twinklyJesus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12David:
If you had read the essay, you would've seen that the issue of "faith" was addressed, and you wouldn't have posted that poorly thought-out response...
read, think, post, live! - ChessPieceFace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Geocentricism, as you defined it, "based on all the evidence currently known" would not then be a "faith based" position, it would be an "evidence" based position.
- Immij, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13"Atheism is a faith the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." Or bald is a hair colour. Or 'off' is a TV channel.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15What a load of crap. The probability of a God is so miniscule as to be impossible, Could a God exist? Sure. It is as likely as Unicorns or Zeus. Do you believe in unicorns or Zeus?
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Science observes.
Religions dictate. - swizzcheez, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16That is more the realm of agnosticism (not knowing), at least as I understand the usages. Atheism very much definitively, or at least publicly, states that there is no God and that all religion is wrong. Agnosticism takes a position in that the lack evidence regarding God as religion has defined it does NOT imply a lack of God, just that the answer is for all intents and purposes unknowable.
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You, sir, are an idiot.
- DekeX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Scottpigeon,
Do you think atheists in general say there is "zero chance"? I don't think they generally do. You don't have to sit right in the middle of the 'belief spectrum' unless you are 100% absolutely sure of your beliefs. I'll admit that there is a greater than 0% chance that somewhere on this planet there is a small group of unicorns grazing in a field... but I'm still comfortable calling myself a strong a-unicornist until I see some evidence for what otherwise appears to be a group of creatures that are the figments of people's imaginations. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Macroevolution is a term only used by Creationist. It is a term that is not scientific unless you mean the change of genes above the level of the species. You are using it like a some ignorant fool who is arguing against something he knows nothing about...a standard ignorant Creationist liar.
- rburgess3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Ok, I can accept that as a valid rationalization for agnosticism. But think about this, just think about it - theists make a positive claim to the existence of something, in exactly the same manner (exactly, there is a one to one correspondence here) that Bertrand Russel made the claim to a teacup floating in space between Earth and Mars.
Are you agnostic when it comes to the existence of the teacup or would you demand reasonable justification for it's existence? That's all an atheist is asking for, reasonable justification for the belief in the existence of the hypothesized supernatural being. -
Show 51 - 100 of 787 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is