PoPpAScience

Its been fun but time to move on. A forum that creates a section for atheist to expose there faith based beliefs and ridicle the people the section is suppose to be set up for, is silly at best. Quite obvious that you are bad people and I'm glad to have seen it early.

 

 

So you come onto a forum for discussing science, make an assertion, then use the members rational rebuttal of your assertion as evidence to prove it; in the playground they just stick their fingers in their ears and do this.

Rational!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have reported your post as it is you that have made claims of such evidence and are now refusing to expand on this. We are a science discussion forum and it is you that are not following the ethos and rules of this forum.

 

If I have been dishonest in any of my replies then you should report me to the moderators. I am just as much a subject of the rules are you are.

How do I report the moderators to the moderators. Are you serious?

 

I haven't seen any particularly strong reactions to your comments here, so I'm not quite sure what your point is. There have been some very reasonable responses (mostly far better than mine, I am happy to admit) and no anger, no "stone the heretic".

 

So it seems to me (and I may well be wrong) that you interpret any other opinion as an emotional and irrational response.

The quote of mine you posed expands beyond this thread.

There have been reasonable responses, if there was not, I would not be posting back. But to say other posts are not of the irrational type, is being bias or dishonest.

"seems to me" you misinterpret alot.

Wow, you are now claiming that there is evidence of god, the supernatural and so on.

 

I must call you out on this. As far as the scientific community is generally concerned, there is no objective, repeatable and credible evidence for the supernatural. The claim otherwise is bizarre. Citations are needed!

Ok I'm bored with you, you can not respond honestly. Your obsession with words I do not use is kind of strange.

To quote from strange; "You seem to think". All your posts to me are from this context. Except for 1 or 2 sentences your expressing responses to what you think I'm saying, no matter how clear I be in what I'm saying. Now your not the only one, except for a couple of sentences by others, all else do the same. Post 24 explains what I'm trying to express exactly. But you take a quote from it and express something totally different.

For a true philosopher like I, it is not about challenging science or the concept of God. It is always about expanding the frontiers of thought on the matters, to levels not seen before. That is what has driven human understanding for all its history

The point is that atheism can be challenged. Just, no-one has yet presented evidence for the supernatural that could really challenge the minimalistic philosophy of atheism.

Your very wrong about that!! The evidence has been shown in many a great research books, they just don't use terms like supernatural. But based on how you interpret what I have been posting here, it is obvious that your mind would not be able to see the written words as they are presented. Thus you would not be able to contemplate on that knowledge. This is a normal condition for most and not a reflection on you.

 

And that's all it comes down to. Some people's default position is to believe in their god or gods (even though there is no evidence) and other's default position is not to believe (even though there is no evidence).

 

You seem to think that defaulting to belief is better (more rational?) than defaulting to not believing. That raises the question of which god one should believe in by default. But maybe it doesn't matter. Do you think people should believe in a god, any god, rather than none, until there is evidence to prove that god doesn't exist?

Again!! This thread is about how a atheist reacts when ever the word God is seen. It is not about if there is a God, or about what you believe. It is about how you express what you believe. My point in this thread is that I have witnessed atheist react the same way to the word God for 10 years. Atheist react as if they have very strong faith based beliefs that shall not be challenged, and to do so, one shall receive their raft. They react the same way a religious person does, if their faith is challenged.

Its about mannerism of actions and speech.

I like to thank all the posters, except two, for confirming my OP perfectly. That atheism being a faith based belief system, brings out the same responses that any religious person would give if their beliefs where challenged.

If atheism was not a faith based belief system, why are the posters posts so filled with emoitional rants, mixed with looniness. Or does it just come down to individuals who just rant as a way of being noticed. I figure they mostly rant in the religion section, because they know other like minded people hang out there and they can giggle together.

They always talk about rational, logical thinking, but post as if they had never had a rational thought in their lives. Or, is it only when they are exposed as phonies do they become illogical. It truely is an amazing thing to witness.

Even though I would perfer to not rattle their cages for my amusement, I have no choice, because what else is there to post about in this section. It should be renamed the faith based belief section for atheist, because they seem to out number the other faiths by 10 to 1.

Truely amazing!

 

No, in fact as an atheist I cannot say if there is or isn't, so far no one has provided any real evidence for a god, so the default position is not to believe there is one. I can't prove there are no unicorns but that doesn't mean I have to believe there is until I prove there is not..

 

 

Key words; default position, believe.

Science has nothing to say about god since gods cannot be tested..

 

Exactly! But atheist have a lot to say on the subject.

No, I wouldn't say they are delusional, possibly misguided...

 

Atheist opinion.

Nothing wrong with being ignorant, we are all ignorant about many things, no one knows everything...

 

Exactly!

So far the evidence does indeed suggest the universe operates by purely naturalistic means, nothing super natural required...

 

This is an atheist view also. A true philosopher comes to conclusions about nature from a more knowledgeable point of view. Agree, nothing super natural needed.

My lack of believe in gods, any gods by the way, not just your version what ever that might be, is based on lack of positive evidence, not faith. I am first and foremost a skeptic, everything else follows from that.

 

Skeptic is great. Opinions about others beliefs based on a lack of positive evidence, comes from faith in your beliefs.

I'm both a Buddhist and an atheist, so where does that put me? Do i have two religions/belief systems?

 

 

I guess I could have asked myself the same question way back when I was studying Buddhism as an atheist. Now I personally separated the teachings of Buddha from the religion created around him. The same way I separate the teachings of Jesus from Christianity. It is their knowledge that I add to my philosophical views on matters of God and Universe.

Many Hindu cosmologies have a similar view of creation. I think it would be informative to explore why a Hindu might believe this and why an atheist might believe this. It is the means by which the belief was arrived at which is pertinent here. Would you care to explore this avenue with me?

 

The word atheism comes from Hindu traditions. The word was mostly associated with rejection of certain texts like Vedas, but also in a rejection to 'God(s) of persona', as I like to use. But rarely against there only being God(universe).

I would love to explore this avenue with you and others, but not in this thread. The reason for starting this thread was my observation that if I started a thread to discuss the knowledge of the ages, it would only be hijacked and flooded by atheist faith based believers, who admit they don't know or care about the subject matter, but feel its their duty to interject.

No offence to you.

*Disclaimer* I was a atheist when I studied many 10's of research books on God(s) and Religion over a decade period, and if there was an internet at the time I would have been in forums like this taking it to the religious and atheist. So, I understand what it is to be an atheist totally, for I was one into my late 30's. Now I'm a true philosopher.

Thanks for the post ajp:

You will need to define your terms very very carefully.

 

I always do! It is hard to get others to accept the words I use, as they stand in our dictionaries. If one wants to know what I mean with a word, google it.

What do you mean by 'faith'? Do you really mean 'trust' or 'blind faith'?

 

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

But the knee jerk assumption always is
: belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Now you have added 'blind faith' to the discussion, and I do not use the definition when talking in science forums about atheism.

It is true that atheists will have trust in their philosophical view that there is no god, or at the very least that the probability of a god is very low. The only way one can argue that a philosophical point of view is 'good' is if this position has severed them well up to this point. A religious person will of course say the same thing.

 

This statement stands as it is, even if we change the word trust, with faith. Your statement here shows why I use the word faith, it is to show that the mannerism of speech by an atheist, is on par with other faith based beliefs. Key words here; mannerism of speech.

However, if you mean blind faith then there really is a distinction. By blind faith I mean the supposition that a statement is true despite there being no evidence for the truth of the statement or even in the case where there is evidence that the statement is false.

 

As I showed above, the definition that you use for 'blind faith', is the definition for 'faith' in the dictionary.

This notion of blind faith is vital to all religions. It is absolutely not a part of atheism.

 

I disagree, but can only show it with rational discussion. An example would be; an atheist has read absolutely nothing on the subject of God written by many atheist researchers, then they speak as if they know what the meaning of God is, with 'blind' statements as if they were fact.

You might argue that there is no evidence that there is not a god. This is the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. This is true, but this is flipping the burden of evidence. Religious people have made the extraordinary claims and so they should provide some evidence.

 

What I say is, that there has been NO scientific experiments on this matter, and thus I agree with your statement, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' . Science only deals with what it can observe, and does a fantastic job of showing how it works. But it is a process, that is always lead by the abilities of the mind to push the boundaries of thought.

Your statement about religious people is true. The problem is that those who are not religious, but are true philosophers, are always thrown into the religious category immediately. As a true philosopher, I have, and will be immediately branded religious and vilified by atheist in every forum that I have visited.

If such evidence were to come to light, then atheists would review their position.

 

Would they?? If they can not even pull back the vails of their atheist beliefs long enough to allow their minds to even look and consider potential evidence put forth, how could they ever review their position. My experience has been that an atheist will throw a tantrum, before they would allow the vail to drop. It is hard for me to understand the level of fear that makes an atheist act this way. I can only relate it to how a religious person would respond.

The reverse can happen; with no evidence of the supernatural people do leave their religions. Again, there is no blind faith here and opinions can change quickly in light of new evidence. I will even say it again, just to be clear... no blind faith required.

 

Virtually all cases I've witnessed of religious people leaving their faith, is because their 'God of persona' does not show itself or does for them. I've never witnessed a religious person who see's God as this Universe, as shown through observation and science, turning into an atheist.

Now, what do you mean by 'belief system'? If you just mean a philosophy, then I think we all agree on this meaning. But by 'belief' do you mean something more?

 

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

Had to go to Dictionary.com for the knee jerk assumption
: a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith

Atheists believe in something because of evidence or the lack of. Again, this is not to be confused with 'blind faith' or 'religious belief' which require no logical thinking or evidence. Because I believe something does not mean that I have no evidence or supporting arguments for my belief. And once more... no blind faith required.

 

Again you are trying to justify what you believe(faith-see above) by adding 'blind' to faith and thinking it changes things. The faith comes into play when an atheist responds to a subject matter that they have spent no time studying on, and even worst no interest in, but make statements about evidence.

At the root of atheism, or for sure my personal version, is the need for sound logic and evidence. I see that the notion of god or gods as a very artificial one that has no clear definition and for sure no objective evidence.

 

How can there be "sound logic and evidence", if it only comes from one point of view, and a limited level of knowledge on the subject. Again this can only lead to your faith in what you know.

I therefore, take the position that the likelihood of the existence of a god is infinitesimally small. Without this evidence I essentially reject the notion of a god and pass the burden of proof back to the religious community. And guess what... I do not require blind faith for this philosophical position.

 

Again, an opinion BASED on your FAITH in what your BELIEFS are. Lack of knowledge on the subject of God, and belief that the subject of God only belongs to the religious, is not a philosophical position, it is an atheist position. A faith based belief position.

In this section of the forum, atheists break every rule written governing this section. They do this to put forth their faith based beliefs. As they say, they do not beleive in a God(s) which religions are built around, and feel its their science given right to set the delusional and uninformed straight. They feel it is their duty to speak the word of science, so as to bring the lost back to the light. They quote from their hand book of atheist beliefs, Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin, and the Big Band. They have faith that these prove there is no God, and must express it in every thread over and over again.

Now this would be ok, because it is the same thing religious people do all the time in science threads. But they don't just quote from their atheist hand book, they flood the thread with emotion, insults, and gobbledegook. You can look at every single thread in this section and it is the same scenario almost every time. Lets take a thread of 40 posts for example. In this thread the OP at the very best might make 5 posts, maybe 2 at best try to make a response in conversation, 10 posts might say prove it(show me the math), thus leaving 23 posts of emotion, insults, and gobbledegook.

rule 3. Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views. This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates.

 

How is anyone in this section suppose to have an intellectual conversation, when this rule is not inforced by the moderators. Worst yet, when one moderator is the worst infractor.

When a person like I, calls atheists out on their behavour, they post the same posts over and over again. Every post; makes a response to something I never said and then they take great offense that I called atheism a religion. Most posts also throw in some insults. Never, and I mean never in 10 years, have I seen any reply post any different.

Now Atheistism is not a cult or religion, even though it acts like one in most cases, it absolutely can be called a Faith Based Belief system.

Now if the atheists come in this thread to respond, they will prove my point, they can not help themselves.

Some atheist faith based beliefs:

There is no God.

Science shows there is no need for God.

Those who believe in God are delusional.

Those who believe in God are ignorant.

Basic theories and experiments like Miller-Urey experiment, and Darwin show the Universe can create without purpose or help.

etc...

As I've seen since forums where created, atheist actions in sections like this one, always sniff of faith based beliefs and little about science.

 

I've always thought of deists as people who believe in God but don't believe in a religion.

 

Back in the day I was a deist. I didn't find any objects to be sacred. I followed no rituals. I never prayed or felt my morals came from God.

 

I've always thought that religion involved more than just a belief in God.

Very well said.

A true philosopher that looks at evidence to the point of seeing the universe as God, but does not connect themselves to the knowledge the evidence came from, is a form of Deists.

Is there any country in the world I can go to where I won't be bothered by religious people.

I like to know where in the world I could go to not be around people like fireworks.

In the US, religious cranks are trying to evict science from the education in favor of teaching christian views. They are causing harm to society, not only in schools, but other things too.

Very uniformed statement, sniffs of ideology. In the USA the trend has been the opposite. Prayer was in all schools at one time, but is banned in all public schools now. Schools with religion in them are always private, except in some isolated centers. In the higher level schools, religious views are not tolerated (except Muslim, then they will find you a place to pray). Not only are religious views not tolerated(again exception Muslim) but conservative views are frown upon and will cost you scores if spoke in class.

 

 

Explain please how asking for evidence to support an assertion like "God did that!" is "emotional and gobbledegook response".

​Don't know, I never said that anywhere. Asking for evidence is a viable question.

 

 

You didn't address the questions asked. I don't say there is no god(s). I'm a weak atheist, which means I don't think there is a god, I'm not willing to say there isn't, but so far there's no good evidence. That's not faith-based at all, not even a little. That's a reality-based assessment.

You so far have been making statements as questions to me and I try to avoid answer them. I responded to this post because you recognized that the he/she was you in my post. hmmm what does that say?

 

 

So I don't believe in god(s). That doesn't make me anti-god(s), any more than my non-stamp collecting makes me anti-stamps. In other words, I don't fit under the blanket you're using to condemn atheists. What's up with that?

Now this is a gobbledegook statement, full of emotion. You don't believe[beliefs] in god(s), but must respond every time it is mention. What's up with that? If you were entering threads about stamp collecting, of which you have no knowledge on because you don't care about the subject, and making many statements that could be perceived as negative and gobbledegook in nature. What's up with that?

You said "Atheism is a faith based belief system, and can be as dogmatic and emotional as religion" in a post that is now in the trash can.

 

A 'faith based belief system' is more-or-less the definition of a religion.

 

 

 

Of course not. The problem is that people do not apply their logic and scientific understanding to all aspects of life. Not that everything should be based just on science, the question of the existence of something you cannot detect is just ignored by religious scientists.

It is not more-or-less. It stands alone. Religion is a collection of works that are worshiped. Religious people can become very emotional and dogmatic. But individuals can make statements in a perceived factual manner that are strictly based on their faith that it is so. I find atheists, do this a lot when talking against certain subject matter, just as I did when I was an atheist.

A perfect example of this is, you have a member posting in every philosophical or religious thread. When ever the word God is printed he/she responds with the same posts over and over again. He/she says; I have no interest in if God is or isn't, but here is my emotional and gobbledegook response anyway. The repeating of these posts is very dogmatic, and faith based. For if one has no interests in the subject matter, then they are ignorant of the subject, and regurgitate their faith based beliefs only.

Faith, based, and beliefs, are not words belong to the subject of religion only. They are words that can related to the speech of individuals or groups outside Religion. All fall in to the category of faith based beliefs, because we all are not all-knowing beings and science is on the endless path to knowing.

Thus when I witness over the last 10 years, atheists expressing their faith based beliefs on a subject matter, and they call me religious for doing so, I react. Not to stir trouble, but it does, but to be philosophical about the situation.

 

 

Whilst I agree with the majority of your post, I can’t agree that science has all the answers, yet (probably never), and given that, how can all philosophical thinking be null or religious in nature?

 

After all, without good questions how can science hope to aspire to answering “life the universe and everything”?

Having a hard time with the structure of your question, but I'll try. First part, is to me. Second part must be a statement, for I never said science has all the answers. Third section is a question, that I partially touched on in my post, on how scientist dictate to philosophers.

Some of my favorites are:

Science of Mind by Ernest Holmes.

Tibetan book of the dead.

Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder.

Science of Being and the Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

can Science explain everything without a God. What do you think?

 

Now the OP of this thread post and ran, so my response is in general.

Science does an excellent job of showing and explaining the perceived Universe. That's what it does. It is not bias in its findings, only expresses what it finds.

Because science on earth has been around only for a short time in earth history it can only study a virtual now to come to conclusions. The rest is theory based on observations of this virtual now. Do our observation see all there is to see, I say not, because we have always found new findings.

This brings us back to the OP's question based on his post. Because he is designating God as one of persona, from the Jewish religion as it is expressed in the bible, then the answer is yes. Because based on the perception and literal interpretations of this God story in the bible, then the actions of this God do not match up with science.

Now if God is this Universe, as explained in the original teachings of all religions, then based on science, God creates just as science shows, step by step the process goes, and the process is the only way it goes. Again yes, science can explain everything without God('s help). Science discovers the process of creation, that is what it does.

There is a huge difference between the God with persona, in man made religions, and the God Universe of the original seer's. Huge difference in a God personally manipulating a Universe, and a God Universe manifesting through the processes we discover with science. Huge difference between creation by God thinking, and God manifesting.

We often see people on this forum who from the start set out to achieve this. Strange really, but it must be like some badge of honour for crackpots and the like. So, it is up to you if you want to play by the rules of this forum and contribute or you can go your own way and get banned. Like I said, the choice is yours.

 

 

 

I disagree here, upon the proviso you have something intelligent and thought provoking. Just claiming that not having any religious beliefs is a religion in itself is not enough.

 

One objection that atheists typically have with the notion of a god, is well the notion itself, and then the lack of objective evidence of such a thing. You can read this thread for some examples of trying to get clear evidence.

 

The only faith part of atheism is the faith that we can explore our world using observations. That is roughly the scientific method: our understanding of our world must be though our direct probing of the world. So in this sense, there is a philosophy behind atheism, but to call it a religion is false. At any moment god could reveal himself and we would have evidence and thus change our opinions.

I never seek to be banned, but fear it when I see moderators expressing emotional and unfounded judgements.

Please show me one time I called atheism a religion, never have in a decade of internet conversation, and never would. I use the definition of 'faith based beliefs'. And I'm always classed as religious for doing so. I have a faith based belief in my ideals as do all others, no matter what classification they use. No knowledge is absolute truth, but expressed with faith that it is so, by majority.

Clear evidence has no meaning if ones mind is closed to it. I have never seen in ten years of internet conversation, an atheist discuss God, creation, or evolution, without bringing emotion, and gobbledegook statements into the discussion. Never! Because this is fact, I always look at it that I am offending their faith based beliefs.

Just as in your post, you express as if an non atheist can not look at observations in reality and come to conclusions not different then science, but different then atheists. So I ask, are you saying that only atheist can see the knowledge of science?

and you didn't learn from your mistake?

LOL! I know, can't help myself.

Excuse me, I organized my statements (With dubious reasoning of course as it was late at night, but they still stand) using a neutral standpoint as the scientific method dictates, and clearly stated my own neutrality as once again dictated by the scientific method, I am neither for nor against because it is:

 

1 a mute point

 

2 a non-realistically debatable topic as there is not enough proof on either side to form a concluding statement for either side

Well stated!

Only when one deliberately keeps themselves neutral on the matters of God, can they reasonably contemplate on the knowledge available to them. Preconceived beliefs on the matter of God, lead to an argumentative discussion, and less a conversation on the matter. One must look at the knowledge, as the most impartial judge they can be, and be diligent in their studies.

Things I took from reading this thread:

Considering God, is classified by many to be anti-science. Where only fundamentalists dispute science in favor of God.

Those against the notion of God, always use the God hypothesis of fundamentalist, as their view of God. This is most likely due to their ignorance of the larger body of non-fundamentalist views about a God.

There has never been any experimental attempted to prove or disprove God, so the answer should be, we don't know and we don't care. If one does not know or care, why do they always respond?

 

How is your preaching different from anyone else's? Why should anyone believe you when you tell them where they must go to "find the more coherent story of GOD"?

 

You're just making it all up like everyone else, aren't you? You have no evidence for anything you say, so why should we believe you? Aren't you just hijacking the OP's idea of god(s) with your own version? And isn't that exactly what every religion does, try to supplant their version for a different version of the same lies?

"find the more coherent story of GOD"? The place is, deep studying on the scientific research books on religions knowledge, there one finds a more coherent understanding of the original knowledge.

No amount of evidence would be able to reach your mind, your mind is made up. Your emotional out burst here shows this to be true.

Where did I mention god(s)?

Your highly speculative conclusions about what I know are emotionally charged and unfounded.

Yes my preaching is equal to scientist preaching that there is no God, I agree. There's no difference to stating 'no God' without evidence, as there is stating there 'is God' with out evidence. It's all faith based beliefs.

Hah, you're fiesty.

 

I must say, I think fear and force is a more effective method of conversion than pseudoscience; I personally prefer the latter because it's entertaining. But it's a joke that becomes old fast.

Ya true. I blasphemed atheistic beliefs yesterday, so I have a huge target on my back now. I'll probably be banned quickly, or at least have my posts highly censored. Sad, but it is taboo to speak against atheist beliefs in a science forum, and I should have known better.

Before I write my thoughts down I would just like to specify that this is merely food for thought. It's just an interesting rendition of thoughts I have about the idea of God.

 

Food for thought is the minds favorite meal.

As a god, a creater of all with no physical representation or otherwise with emence enough power to birth an entire universe in relative days you would make your story known would you not. Although the bible seems no different then any other rendition of a creation story turned truth I feel there is truth in it. As is every creation story there is atleast one truth, the universe is created.

 

One must understand that the knowledge of God through history, has been wrapped in stories so that it could survive, and more importantly be used for human purpose. One must dissect these stories to understand God. The physical representation you state as "no", is that what our Reality flows upon. The creative process we perceive as Reality, is only a part of the over all story of God.

Now God is seen as a being but I don't think that's what he is. I believe God just is.

 

There's evidence in the creative process, that God as IS, flowed into BEING. God IS, and transforming into Being, are still ONE thing.

He is life he surrounds us he is the air we breathe he is the water we drink because he is everything. It's almost as if he created everything out of himself and so he is everything.

 

Using "he" contradicts the premise of your OP. Using designated words for creations, i.e. males, should not be used in talking about God as the Only thing.

It's uncomprehendable to the human mind how great this idea is.

 

Not to all minds! To a true philosopher the idea you mainly speak of here, is one of the simplest of idea's. But an even simpler idea, then what you comprehend, is where one must go to find the more coherent story of GOD.

The thought of a force that governs everything with laws of way. It's almost as if he is the force that drives life and death and separates the two. He controls everything and is the reason everything is as we know it.

 

In the more simpler idea I spoke of earlier, God does not need to govern, force, or control Reality, the process of creation takes care of those things. Universal laws are the evidence of the processes of creation, as they stand now, not as the preordained laws people perceive.

Know how things are created isn't magic, there are fundamentals behind it. There are viable blocks that hold everything together. It's held together by actual forms not an invisible glue. It's like if you were to build a tower above the ground it's not going to stay in that place it will fall apart it has to have a foundation holding it together just like anything else.

 

You are right that creation is not magic and has fundamentals to it. There are blocks (forms), but they are held together, by the Actions of Motion, this is the invisible glue you deny. ​

Thanks for reading! I really appreciate any positive feedback and this was really just written to start discussion. (Please excuse any grammer and spelling errors thanks.)

 

I hope my feedback was positive, and hope you come back to see it.

Philosophy has mainly through out history, been a way of taking observations about reality and giving them conventional words and classifications for human contemplation and conversation. This became more important for the more advanced science age and its need for universal words to classify their findings. Words like space and time were dealt with philosophically to give them standing in science.

Philosophy in past history, played the major roll in formalizing advancement in thought and understanding. Around the turn of the 20th century philosophy started to lose its partnership with science and having a lesser and lesser roll in science, turned to predominantly contemplating on the subjectivity and objectivity of human thought.

If philosophers today try to advance thought beyond that what science can deal with, they are called metaphysical or against main stream. If a true philosopher today, who embraces science in every detail, but tries to advance the conversation, they are told to show the math or experiments.

Scientist today dictate how we are allowed to contemplate or converse about the reality we live in, true philosophy is delegated to the designation of religion.

Yes it is off topic and I was responding to a mods off topic response.

Actually you are wrong. Denying the existence of something that science has made no effort to understand or discover, is a blind faith belief. To have the belief that anything to do with the creative process of the Universe has to be 'random flukiness', and the belief that any other discussion must have a God element to it, can be associated with a faith based belief system.

So denying without proof is ok, but expressing with out proof is wrong. hmmmm!

I was a diehard Atheist into my late thirties, but looked in the mirror one day and seen the impossible, 100 trillion trillion particles working in unison for me to look, and realized that I was wrong in denying the possibilities of less complicated or more complicated entities.

I find it always funny, that questioning the faith of an atheist, always gets the response that the other is religious. There are those, like I, that try to avoid faith based beliefs, and follow the evidence where it leads. All evidence without prejudice.

 

This all sounds like emotional guesswork. I see so many claims of Truth and Proof, and no evidence to support them. Why do people think science looks for those things? Science isn't a religion, it needs reliable, trustworthy foundations, based in reality, not guesswork pumped up by emotional certainty.

Atheism is a faith based belief system, and can be as dogmatic and emotional as religion. With the over whelming majority of scientist being atheist these days, there is a very restrictive and hostile environment for true philosophy to hold its place with science as it has for all human history. Just try to have a conversation about evolution with an atheist scientist, and see how emotional they will get.

It always drops my jaw, to hear scientist disregard the imaginative nature of the mind and its precursory roll in scientific discovery. My first response to this phenomenon is, that it most be faith based atheist dogma driven. Without human imagination, there would not be any science ever conceived. We would just live on pure instincts like animals do.