Atheists of R&S? When it comes to dismissing God, is it merely a question as to which paradigm you adhere to??
How can you justify such adherence to a paradigm when both supernaturalism and naturalism are conjectural when it comes to questions about cosmological origins?
Is not atheism merely an hypothesis at best, but at worst merely dismissive ignorance founded on lack of education and cheap jack opportunistic rebellion???
Your thoughts??
37 comments
"Atheists of R&S? When it comes to dismissing God, is it merely a question as to which paradigm you adhere to??
"Scientism"? Is that like "evolutionism" and all the other bullshit you people tack "ism" onto in order to demonize it?
To answer the question, yes, science is a damned sight better than superstitious bullshit.
"How can you justify such adherence to a paradigm when both supernaturalism and naturalism are conjectural when it comes to questions about cosmological origins?"
Science has a better track record. It also has quite a bit more evidence for its "conjecture".
"Is not atheism merely an hypothesis at best, but at worst merely dismissive ignorance founded on lack of education and cheap jack opportunistic rebellion???"
It's not a hypothesis as we're not proposing anything; you are.
"Your thoughts??"
I think you should rethink your post and try again.
LOLWUT? We don't adhere to a "scientistic" paradigm. We refuse to adhere to any given religious paradigm. That is it. Why you may ask? You can tell me by explaining why you dismiss Thor, Odin, the FSM, Vishnu, Amaterasu, et. al.
Origins are not the issue here, because, like you try to say, it is speculative. It just happens that speculating via positing a deity is just a tad ridiculous, especially when you start tacking dogma onto it.
As for your second to last sentence: it is not a hypothesis, it is a refusal to accept other hypotheses that have no basis. As for dismissive ignorance, answer my question regarding your own dismissal of every other religion and we'll talk about who is rebelling against what.
Atheism would be the null hypothesis to the hypothesis that there is a God. As such, one must disprove the null hypothesis, or rather, provide evidence for God. Since we cannot reject the null hypothesis, we must accept it.
Is it more likely that there is no god than that there is a god?
Hard to say. Maybe.
Is it more likely that there is no god than that there is your specific god?
Oh, hell, yes.
Whether or not atheism is a justifiable alternative to all the other possibilities put together, it's definitely a more than justifiable alternative to any one of the other possibilities individually.
Ok, maybe I'm just drunk, but what the hell is he saying?
Oh, and maybe atheism is just a hypothesis, but so is theism. Adhering to an impossible, logic-defying world view is moronic.
Is a "scientistic" paradigm preferable to a supernatural one... it seems that given the progress of science (which does indeed deserve credit) one cannot be blamed for falling for the trap of "scientism" can they???
Science isn't an "ism", it's science, not religion. Repeating it over and over again won't make it so.
Is not atheism merely an hypothesis at best
Atheism is not a worldview, a scientific theory, a philosophy, or paradigm. Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief in a god or gods. Period. That's all, nothing more.
but at worst merely dismissive ignorance founded on lack of education and cheap jack opportunistic rebellion???
How can a lack of indoctrination equal a lack of education? To your second point, yes sometimes atheism can be an act of rebellion, but it what way can it be considered "opportunistic"?
No, its different from person to person.. my atheism to me means that I couldnt give a rats ass wether your evil jeebus exists or not..I do not consider him worthy of my adoration and worship. Every god and goddess I have ever read about is not worthy of my worship. This basically means that, as far as Im concerned, your Jesus can go fuck himself.
half right. yes it's true that both empiricism as well as supernatural/mystical/whathaveyou beliefs are, a priori, unproveable and have to be taken on their own terms, on faith, if you will. the problem is that one of the two you're going to have to believe in to some degree anyway, and hint: it's not the supernatural one. every time you open a door, walk across a room or street or do pretty much ... ANYTHING AT ALL, you're making judgments based on experiences and an expectation of orderliness of the natural world, ie., empiricism. on the other hand, the very existence of atheists shows that people can and do get along very well without any belief in the supernatural in this world.
When it comes to dismissing God, is it merely a question as to which paradigm you adhere to?? No, it is a choice of a consistently rational worldview over superstitious ignorance.
My thoughts are that Meth-abuselah, displaying his obvious brainy-washy ignorance, is a cheap jack supercilious twit.
"Scientistic"?! "Scientism"?!
<draws a HUGE breath>
HAAAAAAA HA HA HA HAAA HAA HAA!!
Whew... sorry about that. Almost passed out there.
Oh look! A fundie got ahold of a dictionary! Ain't it cute? Now, if you pardon me, I have some questions of my own:
Is not religion merely an hypothesis at best? In fact, is not religion merely working the scientific method backwards and then disregarding the entire last step?
What you fail to understand is that atheism is an admission of a LACK of knowledge and an understanding that there is not enough evidence to certify the existance of a God. Why should I attribute everything I do not comprehend to a God? Do you attribute every magic trick to supernaturalism? Most assuredly, not. Yes, you are quite correct in that I haven't the faintest idea of our cosmological origins. But, given time, I am sure that there is some scientifc explanation that will reveal itself. Indeed, didn't we find out through science that the sun doesn't rotate around the Earth? Through science we understood that the Earth isn't flat. Through alleged Holy Books, what have we come to understand about the natural world? Absolutely nothing.
"How can you justify such adherence to a paradigm when both supernaturalism and naturalism are conjectural when it comes to questions about cosmological origins?"
if you're making an argument, you have to make some assumptions otherwise you are like an annoying 5 year old asking why over and over.
the assumption of naturalism is simply the most reasonable when it comes to explaining things.
I agree with the previous poster who described atheism as the null hypothesis.
Now Methuselah, you readily concede the progress made through science. How much advancement has been made through prayer? How many diseases have been cured by prayer? How many new crops have been developed by prayer? How many computers were created by prayer?
None you say?
Then by "turning theist" you have committed a Type I error. You have rejected the null hypothesis when the evidence suggests that you should have accepted it.
"Atheists of R&S? When it comes to dismissing God, is it merely a question as to which paradigm you adhere to??"
'Paradigm'? Tomatoes don't stick to me. And you're a louse.
(An internet to the first one who guesses the reference there! X3 )
"Supernaturalism and naturalism" ...well, everything for which we have evidence is naturalism, so that makes it NOT conjectural. Natural laws govern everything that we see twinkling in the sky. You are looking for a teeny, tiny god to fill in that gap that we refer to as the Big Bang. Be my guest.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
