Jump to content

Why would an athiest not believe in religion?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Personally I have nothing against religious people, or religion for that matter. In a vast majority of cases in this day and age, I believe people use it and practise it, more as a comfort entity then

Most? Do you have data on that? Why would we not believe what neanderthals believed? We could try to understand what they did in the context of the world they lived in, but does that mean we shou

Yeah. Huh? What are you talking about?  My point was a belief or faith is different than a theory that is supported by observation and experimentation.

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why would an athiest not believe in religion?

Will you please elaborate on what this question means? "Believe in" religion. Of course religion exists. I may not support it or offer faith to their claims, but "believe in religion" doesn't parse for me and hoping you will clarify. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Will you please elaborate on what this question means? "Believe in" religion. Of course religion exists. 

Most athiests only attack the concept of a god, rather than a critique of the human understanding of what is written, and understood at the time a religion is inspired.

What makes a religion?

 

Science works today because it's well understood, it doesn't follow that it will be tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Most athiests only attack the concept of a god, rather than a critique of the human understanding of what is written, and understood at the time a religion is inspired.

Most? Do you have data on that?

Why would we not believe what neanderthals believed? We could try to understand what they did in the context of the world they lived in, but does that mean we should share their beliefs?

I lot of the beliefs of a religion have a god as their core. If ancient people ate raw pigs and got sick, but they didn't know why, they may explain it as "God does not want us to eat raw pork!" Now we understand why you would get sick, and don't need the concept of a god to explain it. It's not like atheists say "I don't believe in god, so I won't believe there's anything wrong with eating raw pork!" Atheists and religious people and neanderthals share a lot of the same beliefs. However, if you believe in something, and can't separate the concept of god from it, but are an atheist, I think that means there's a contradiction in your beliefs. As it is, there is nothing in reality that is inconsistent with the belief that no supernatural god exists.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, md65536 said:

I lot of the beliefs of a religion have a god as their core. If ancient people ate raw pigs and got sick, but they didn't know why, they may explain it as "God does not want us to eat raw pork!" Now we understand why you would get sick, and don't need the concept of a god to explain it. It's not like atheists say "I don't believe in god, so I won't believe there's anything wrong with eating raw pork!" Atheists and religious people and neanderthals share a lot of the same beliefs. However, if you believe in something, and can't separate the concept of god from it, but are an atheist, I think that means there's a contradiction in your beliefs. As it is, there is nothing in reality that is inconsistent with the belief that no supernatural god exists.

You're kinda proving my point...

Einstein for instance, do you believe in his explanation of time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What makes a religion?

The human tendency of applying simple narratives to explain often complex topics, amplified by the way we tend to defer to charismatic tribal elders and align ourselves with the social expectations of our local group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Discuss... 

!

Moderator Note

You’ve been here long enough that you should know it doesn’t work this way. Even it were a five-minute video, rather than 1.5 hours.

Make your point in the post, not with a link.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Einstein for instance, do you believe in his explanation of time?

That's like asking you if you accept the scientific theory that Jesus can bring dead people back to life.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Most athiests only attack the concept of a god, rather than a critique of the human understanding of what is written,

As an 'atheist', I don't have a problem with the concept of God.
The concept can be interpreted in many ways, and we are in no position to prove/disprove any of those conceptual interpretations.
What I do have a problem with is exactly the 'human understanding' that has proven so easily corruptible by a few, to take advantage of the many, through the ages ( and continues to this day ). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I have nothing against religious people, or religion for that matter. In a vast majority of cases in this day and age, I believe people use it and practise it, more as a comfort entity then anything else, and as a wall against the scientifically based conclusion that death is it...it is final and the end. That worries many people imo, and religion gives them that inner warm fuzzy feeling that upon their death, they will be magically transported to heaven or its equivalent.

There are many good decent religious people in this world that mean well, and truly practise the basis of their religion. My Mrs is one of them. She was born in Fiji, now a naturalized Aussie, and like almost all Fijians, have a strong religious connection, based on Christianity or Hindi for Indian Fijians. She also puts up with me. But basically, we tolerate our differences and have been together for 42 years now, and both our first marriages.

My only beef against religious people are the one's that come to science forums such as this and others, preaching their fire and brimstone, and attempting to belittle science.

I have seen the video in the opening post, and while I like both those esteemed scientists, Carl Sagan imo had a far more subtle approach to people of a religious leaning. But that's a personal taste. I don't particularly see myself as an Atheist, more a student of reasonability and scientific application, that simply sees any God as a mythical entity constructed to bring comfort to an individual, and as a companion to their ignorance of science and the scientific explanation.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You're kinda proving my point...

I'm not seeing your point at all. Maybe you can explain, why would a religious person not believe in atheism? Is that similar to what you're asking? Can you describe the analogous point to the one you're making from that perspective, or if it's not analogous, what's the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Einstein for instance, do you believe in his explanation of time?

Geometrodynamics is an epistemological model of gravity, not an ontological one (IOW it’s a mathematical model) - we use it because it is amenable to the scientific method, and thereby found to work very well. One day in the future it will almost certainly be understood as an effective approximation to something more fundamental, which may then use an entirely different notion of time, or even dispense with the concept altogether. So Einstein didn’t offer any ontological explanation for time, he just took the notion at face value (“time is what clocks measure”) and used that to formulate a model of how gravity works. Quite successfully so, I might add.

Hence, belief (in the religious sense) doesn’t come into this; rather, it’s about an epistemological description of some aspect of reality, and its usefulness to match experiment and observation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, beecee said:

Personally I have nothing against religious people, or religion for that matter. In a vast majority of cases in this day and age, I believe people use it and practise it, more as a comfort entity then anything else, and as a wall against the scientifically based conclusion that death is it...it is final and the end. That worries many people imo, and religion gives them that inner warm fuzzy feeling that upon their death, they will be magically transported to heaven or its equivalent.

Hell yeah! It's a wall against personal demons.  +1

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 7:02 PM, Bufofrog said:

That's like asking you if you accept the scientific theory that Jesus can bring dead people back to life.

Not at all, do you understand time?

On 2/12/2021 at 8:02 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Geometrodynamics is an epistemological model of gravity, not an ontological one (IOW it’s a mathematical model) - we use it because it is amenable to the scientific method, and thereby found to work very well. One day in the future it will almost certainly be understood as an effective approximation to something more fundamental

Perhaps our current understanding is a close as we get and in one day that understanding converges and all we're left with is a model that never, really worked.

I don't believe religion was ever really ontological, just a method of conveying current understanding, forgotten over time.

 

On 2/11/2021 at 8:13 PM, beecee said:

I believe people use it and practise it, more as a comfort entity then anything else, and as a wall against the scientifically based conclusion that death is it...it is final and the end. That worries many people imo, and religion gives them that inner warm fuzzy feeling that upon their death, they will be magically transported to heaven or its equivalent.

I largely agree, other than the death thing; imagine if that warm fuzzy feeling happens in life, no point in waiting for death...

I think the death thing is more about the divine comedy of karma...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Not at all, do you understand time?

I understand time as it relates to relativity and a belief is not necessary for this understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I understand time as it relates to relativity and a belief is not necessary for this understanding.

Are you sure?

What if you're understanding is relative to the time you think you understood?

I'm not saying science can't provide answer's, I'm just saying they aren't the only conclusion...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Are you sure?

Yeah.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What if you're understanding is relative to the time you think you understood?

Huh?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not saying science can't provide answer's, I'm just saying they aren't the only conclusion...

What are you talking about?  My point was a belief or faith is different than a theory that is supported by observation and experimentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps our current understanding is a close as we get and in one day that understanding converges and all we're left with is a model that never, really worked.

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean here. GR evidently works very well, in that it makes testable predictions. Belief thus doesn’t come into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Area54 said:

To answer the question in the thread title, because there is no meaningful evidence to support the objective truth of any religion I am aware of.

Hand's up folk's it's a bloody awful title and OP, since I'm trying to explore how time can disconnect knowledge from understanding.

For instance, if a teacher has full knowledge of, but doesn't understand Einstein's paper (and there's no one that can correct them), and their teacher's teacher, and their teacher's teacher's teacher, etc.  

I wonder how long it would take, if it would, for Einstein to become some sort of Buddha type deity.

1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

God was invented by people, and in their own image, in order to explain what is currently not explained. At present, God is not needed to explain the origin of the universe.

God may just be a cultural joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

For instance, if a teacher has full knowledge of, but doesn't understand Einstein's paper (and there's no one that can correct them), and their teacher's teacher, and their teacher's teacher's teacher, etc.  

If nobody understood relativity then it would rapidly fade away since it would be useless information.

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I wonder how long it would take, if it would, for Einstein to become some sort of Buddha type deity.

I would assume never.  In the scenario where no one understood relativity, no one would care who he was and in a world that understood relativity he would be a scientist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bufofrog said:

If nobody understood relativity then it would rapidly fade away since it would be useless information.

But they have knowledge of the paper and it sort of makes sense, why would it fade away with so many advocates?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm trying to explore how time can disconnect knowledge from understanding.

For me there is a disconnect between my understanding of knowledge and your knowledge of understanding.

Or, to put it more directly, knowledge without understanding is merely data and as such your Einstein to Bhudda scenario evaporates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.