Religious Atheists?

Subject: Religious Atheists?

ire.mark 20.04.14 - 05:11pm
It hasn't been measured not even a bit. Dark matter and dark energy are place holder names for things unaccounted for. They may as well be called Bill and Ted. These are forces unseen that Newtonian physics can not account for. They think there is a force or many forces that acts that is unseen, they don't know, if there isn't we'll have to change our understanding of gravitational physics. * +

urvoice1 20.04.14 - 05:18pm

@ viva - 20.04.14 - 04:50pm
Although Atheism isn't science, it demands scientific proof about the existence of Creator. Just like the multiverse, it hasn't been scientifically proved, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If Aheism behaves like science, Atheists should honestly say that they don't know about the existence of Creator, instead of saying that Creator doesn't exist. There should be no Atheism at all. It's all about proving something scientifically. Even Stephen Hawking believes in multiverse by saying that information isn't lost in other universes that have no black holes to correct his biggest mistake. Maybe some people would say that the existence of Creator cannot be taken into scientific world. Maybe they're correct because our scientific information and technology right now isn't sufficient enough to do such thing, just like proving the existence of multiverse.

I can not demonstrate if there is ceator or not but I can dismiss it for having no basis. The acceptance of a creator no matter which way you put it requires a leap of faith. A willingness to fill a God did it attitude into your method of thinking and that's ok that's your right. Newton himself did it and he was shown to be wrong. I'm an atheist because I dismiss your claim that there is a creator pending further evidence. * +

dgsn 20.04.14 - 05:38pm
Not believing in something does not mean you claim it dosnt exist, it just means you dont believe it does exits. * +

ire.mark 20.04.14 - 06:41pm
I can no more not believe in God as much as I can believe in God. It's a null point, if an atheist is 0 and a theist is 2 they have to show me 1 before I can make to leap over to 2 otherwise I'm free to dismiss that 2 is a pointless assumption even if it's true. * +

ire.mark 20.04.14 - 06:42pm
was that a bad analogue? * +

kimjongl 20.04.14 - 10:54pm

Quite correct, atheism isn't a science. However atheism does not demand scientific proof from anything. An individual atheist might for a certain matter but atheism as a whole is nothing more than a collection of atheists. There is no collective philosophy.

With regard to belief, there is a difference in a religious type of belief which requires a leap of faith with no supporting evidence compared to a belief in, for example, the multiverse idea.

I myself believe in the multiverse idea as an option, but in the absence of evidence I'm open to other reasonable non supernatural options. In that sense I both believe and disbelieve the multiverse idea simultaneously.

With regard to a creator being taken into the scientific world, this is quite possible. However such an entity would automatically cease to be a creator in the supernatural sense. They would simply become part of a proven theory, if evidence was supplied, and the never ending question would be asked again: 'Who created the creator?' * +