Jump to content

Why would an athiest not believe in religion?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

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.

I'm not assuming your level of understanding, but for me, I believe he was a genius and often argue in his favour; Imagine this site bereaved of those capable of filling the gaps in my understanding, Markus et al, I wouldn't just stop advocating his genius.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not assuming your level of understanding, but for me, I believe he was a genius and often argue in his favour; Imagine this site bereaved of those capable of filling the gaps in my understanding, Markus, swansont et al, I wouldn't just stop advocating his genius.

 

49 minutes ago, Area54 said:

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.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

God may just be a cultural joke.

Like Trump...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

On 2/12/2021 at 2:10 AM, md65536 said:

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?

If instead of focusing on positions, specifically focusing on the position of an atheist versus the position of a theist, if instead of doing this, one concentrates on the mental attitudes procreated as a result of the differences in these (two) positions, then such differences turn out to be per se  not exactly so clear to their claimers. You can even conceive religious-like mental activities whose close connections to their ant-thesis of any brand of non-deism, proves to be properties of the mind itself RATHER THAN POINTS ATTAINED FROM ATHEISM OR DEISM.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If instead of focusing on positions, specifically focusing on the position of an atheist versus the position of a theist, if instead of doing this, one concentrates on the mental attitudes procreated as a result of the differences in these (two) positions, then such differences turn out to be per se  not exactly so clear to their claimers. You can even conceive religious-like mental activities whose close connections to their ant-thesis of any brand of non-deism, proves to be properties of the mind itself RATHER THAN POINTS ATTAINED FROM ATHEISM OR DEISM.  

Did you read that through before you posted it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours 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.  

Having a teacher makes grasping relativity easier, but it is certainly not a required necessity. Given some familiarity with basic calculus and linear algebra, anyone could read the original paper on SR and eventually figure out the basic principles involved by themselves, though it might take some time and effort. The same is true of GR, though it would be more difficult. The advantage of having a teacher is that we don’t have to do this - others have figured it out before us, so it is easier and much faster to tap into the existing consensus on these matters. Why reinvent the wheel over and over again? But if the case arises that there are doubts about what a teacher says, we can always go back to the original source and check for ourselves. That’s the beauty of math.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If instead of focusing on positions, specifically focusing on the position of an atheist versus the position of a theist, if instead of doing this, one concentrates on the mental attitudes procreated as a result of the differences in these (two) positions, then such differences turn out to be per se  not exactly so clear to their claimers. You can even conceive religious-like mental activities whose close connections to their ant-thesis of any brand of non-deism, proves to be properties of the mind itself RATHER THAN POINTS ATTAINED FROM ATHEISM OR DEISM.  

As @John Cuthber delicately suggests in his preceding post, the meaning of your post is not at all clear. I think what follows is what you meant:

Rather than looking directly at theist versus atheist, lets look at attitudes generated by theism versus attitudes generated by atheism. When we do this we may find fewer differences than imagined. It may even be the case that atheists have attitudes and behaviours not unlike those of a theist, because such attitudes and behaviours arise from the basic character of the human mind, not from the professed atheism or theism.

Does that match your meaning? If not can you attempt to clarify? Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If instead of focusing on positions, specifically focusing on the position of an atheist versus the position of a theist, if instead of doing this, one concentrates on the mental attitudes procreated as a result of the differences in these (two) positions, then such differences turn out to be per se  not exactly so clear to their claimers. You can even conceive religious-like mental activities whose close connections to their ant-thesis of any brand of non-deism, proves to be properties of the mind itself RATHER THAN POINTS ATTAINED FROM ATHEISM OR DEISM.  

 

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

As @John Cuthber delicately suggests in his preceding post, the meaning of your post is not at all clear. I think what follows is what you meant:

Rather than looking directly at theist versus atheist, lets look at attitudes generated by theism versus attitudes generated by atheism. When we do this we may find fewer differences than imagined. It may even be the case that atheists have attitudes and behaviours not unlike those of a theist, because such attitudes and behaviours arise from the basic character of the human mind, not from the professed atheism or theism.

Does that match your meaning? If not can you attempt to clarify? Thank you.

As you can see, members here are doing their best to help you by interpreting your unusual form of English.

+1 to Area54

 

Your general lack of response to such efforts is making communication unworkable, which will eventually lead to everyone giving up trying.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Area54 said:

As @John Cuthber delicately suggests in his preceding post, the meaning of your post is not at all clear. I think what follows is what you meant:

Rather than looking directly at theist versus atheist, lets look at attitudes generated by theism versus attitudes generated by atheism. When we do this we may find fewer differences than imagined. It may even be the case that atheists have attitudes and behaviours not unlike those of a theist, because such attitudes and behaviours arise from the basic character of the human mind, not from the professed atheism or theism.

Does that match your meaning? If not can you attempt to clarify? Thank you.

Yes . . . . .. Very Dear Friend 

Thank you so much for your comment 

This is exactly what I meant there  ,  , ,, , ,

22 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Did you read that through before you posted it?

Yes / Sir 

I read  it twice before reading it . . . ..

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Having a teacher makes grasping relativity easier, but it is certainly not a required necessity. Given some familiarity with basic calculus and linear algebra, anyone could read the original paper on SR and eventually figure out the basic principles involved by themselves, though it might take some time and effort. The same is true of GR, though it would be more difficult. The advantage of having a teacher is that we don’t have to do this - others have figured it out before us, so it is easier and much faster to tap into the existing consensus on these matters. Why reinvent the wheel over and over again? But if the case arises that there are doubts about what a teacher says, we can always go back to the original source and check for ourselves. That’s the beauty of math.

What was once written by man can be written again, but without a teacher what language would we use?

We're all subject to the enthrall of our teacher's, enlightenment is understanding that we're not limited to their teachings...

 

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

What was once written by man can be written again, but without a teacher what language would we use?

We're all subject to the enthrall of our teacher's, enlightenment is understanding that we're not limited to their teachings...

 

I need to get my marijuana where you get yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I need to get my marijuana where you get yours.

I could teach you how to grow your own, but I doubt my teaching would enlighten you... 🤪

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

What was once written by man can be written again, but without a teacher what language would we use?

Mathematics.

But once again, if every generation of physicists was to reinvent the wheel, because they didn’t believe what the generation before them has already discovered and ascertained, then science will never get anywhere. It is of course good to be sceptical and subject ideas to continued testing, but at some point one also has to put some trust into the consensus about what is already been well ascertained through the scientific method.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Mathematics.

But once again, if every generation of physicists was to reinvent the wheel, because they didn’t believe what the generation before them has already discovered and ascertained, then science will never get anywhere. It is of course good to be sceptical and subject ideas to continued testing, but at some point one also has to put some trust into the consensus about what is already been well ascertained through the scientific method.

My incompetence at getting my point across, is underlining my point; transfering my understanding to other's take's skill and talent (not my wheelhouse).

Markus, you are living proof that what you say is possible, but even you had to be taught the fundamentals before you can teach yourself to the level you've achieved; I believe that may have blinded you to my point, which is, prophet's are rare.

But as chinese whispers demonstrate the longer the chain/wider the gap, the greater the message is corrupted.

So, given enough time or a long enough chain, understanding is lost; I understand that mathematics is a very robust language, but that's because I've been taught the fundamental's well enough, I'm just not capable of understanding why (I'm in the middle of the bell curve).

That's why I believe Einstein could become a prophet like deity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Yes . . . . .. Very Dear Friend 

Thank you so much for your comment 

This is exactly what I meant there  ,  , ,, , ,

Yes / Sir 

I read  it twice before reading it . . . ..

Then I suggest that you get someone else to read your stuff before posting it.
That way you might avoid saying things like "I read  it twice before reading it ."

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Then I suggest that you get someone else to read your stuff before posting it.
That way you might avoid saying things like "I read  it twice before reading it ."

I recognise that shame... 😣

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

That's why I believe Einstein could become a prophet like deity.

Yes, I think you're proving your point. If you don't understand something, it can seem god-like. If you read what Einstein wrote and understand even just parts of it, it's easy to see that it's basically a set of assumptions that match observations of reality, and some mathematical consequences of those, whose predictions also match observation. There's nothing god-like about it. But if you don't read it, it's an unknown, and it's already been discussed that people tend to attribute what's unknown to gods.

So it sounds like you're assuming that Einstein's work will become an unknown, but that the stories of Him or His work will survive and be passed on (with language, I guess?). But the same can be said about anything that's known. Science can explain lightning, but if everyone ignored and forgot that, then Zeus could regain popularity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, md65536 said:

Yes, I think you're proving your point. If you don't understand something, it can seem god-like. If you read what Einstein wrote and understand even just parts of it, it's easy to see that it's basically a set of assumptions that match observations of reality, and some mathematical consequences of those, whose predictions also match observation. There's nothing god-like about it. But if you don't read it, it's an unknown, and it's already been discussed that people tend to attribute what's unknown to gods.

So it sounds like you're assuming that Einstein's work will become an unknown, but that the stories of Him or His work will survive and be passed on (with language, I guess?). But the same can be said about anything that's known. Science can explain lightning, but if everyone ignored and forgot that, then Zeus could regain popularity.

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

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

Markus, you are living proof that what you say is possible, but even you had to be taught the fundamentals before you can teach yourself to the level you've achieved

Yes, that’s true, I don’t deny that at all. But mathematics as a language is fairly objective, in the sense that - even if you don’t understand any of the underlying physics - you can adopt a “shut up and calculate” approach, and still eventually obtain the correct results. With enough effort and time and repetition this will allow you to eventually figure out the underlying physics. This is of course after you learn the mathematical techniques required - so I agree with you on that point.

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's why I believe Einstein could become a prophet like deity.

I don’t think that will happen, based on the fact that it hasn’t happened with any other historical scientist either. For example, Isaac Newton is nearly 400 years in the past now, and in his own time his paradigm was as revolutionary as Einstein’s paradigm in the 20th century, and just as difficult for people of his time to understand. And still, Newton hasn’t been made a deity - on the contrary, his results have slowly been assimilated into people’s basic worldview, and nowadays they are essentially taken for granted, and taught in secondary school; they are now very “mundane”. I see no tendency for him (or anyone else in physics) to be deified.

Could you give a concrete example of what you are suggesting actually having happened?

 

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

I don’t think that will happen, based on the fact that it hasn’t happened with any other historical scientist either. For example, Isaac Newton is nearly 400 years in the past now, and in his own time his paradigm was as revolutionary as Einstein’s paradigm in the 20th century, and just as difficult for people of his time to understand. And still, Newton hasn’t been made a deity - on the contrary, his results have slowly been assimilated into people’s basic worldview, and nowadays they are essentially taken for granted, and taught in secondary school; they are now very “mundane”. I see no tendency for him (or anyone else in physics) to be deified.

Newton's message is written in the most robust language known, in a continuous culture that has been building on that understanding, to the point that we understand why his message is incomplete; let's not forget, he was also an alchemist and given his prophetic qualities, had he solely focused on that, it's plausible that he might have been.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Could you give a concrete example of what you are suggesting actually having happened?

Not concrete but plausible, paganism for instance, given their (original) knowledge of herbs and natural remedies'; It's reasonable to assume they we're the scietists of their day, and there's no evidence to suggest that's not same for Buddha.

Quote

 

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! - Shelley

 

 

 

I'm not saying Einstein will be deified, I'm just saying it's plausible; every empire has it's day and then dies...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, md65536 said:

There's nothing god-like about it. But if you don't read it

If you can't read it, is my point.

17 hours ago, md65536 said:

and it's already been discussed that people tend to attribute what's unknown to gods.

Maybe it's cultural...

In some culture's it's common to invoke a deity before doing something dangerous e.g. saying "insha allah" before overtaking a lorry on a blind bend; it would be arrogant to assume they're blind to knowledge or understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 3:08 PM, studiot said:

 

As you can see, members here are doing their best to help you by interpreting your unusual form of English.

+1 to Area54

 

Your general lack of response to such efforts is making communication unworkable, which will eventually lead to everyone giving up trying.

 

My lack of response ?  !!

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

ohh, I give up...

You have written  MANY  deep worthy unassailable posts in this forum , , , ,, 

I appreciate you for them all  

 

You certainly   ARE  a  professional methodical thinker ...  

 

I am grateful to you for this , too  .... 

I hope I shall learn more & more from you the way I have learned up till now from you . . . . 

I don't mind others or even you yourself coming in and starting giving negatives to sheer gratefulness 

Others calling me audience or they being my audience or interlocuters or whatever they have done to you or to me 

I am just appreciating you forthright for what I've learnt from you . . .. .

 

Edited by Prof Reza Sanaye
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

You have written  MANY  deep worthy unassailable posts in this forum , , , ,, 

I appreciate you for them all  

 

You certainly   ARE  a  professional methodical thinker ...  

 

I am grateful to you for this , too  .... 

I hope I shall learn more & more from you the way I have learned up till now from you . . . . 

I don't mind others or even you yourself coming in and starting giving negatives to sheer gratefulness 

Others calling me audience or they being my audience or interlocuters or whatever they have done to you or to me 

I am just appreciating you forthright for what I've learnt from you . . .. .

 

I've not given you a neg rep, but they are an excellent source of understanding... But thank you Prof, are you using google to translate between our language's? 

 

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

I've not given you a neg rep, but they are an excellent source of understanding... But thank you Prof, are you using google to translate between our language's? 

 

I am using google to get my own thoughts corrected by others in case they are wrong  

AND : to push out over-conventionalism in matters of doing and interpreting science , and humanities .....

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.