Strictly speaking, the only things which can be proved beyond all doubt are mathematical propositions.

So, to a philosopher, the idea that somebody was filmed shooting somebody and leaving behind fingerprints, etc. and confessing, all that would not amount to irrefutable proof. Obviously, in real life, that is irrefutable proof. A jury would arrive at a guilty verdict on that basis.

As regards science, the strength of scientific theory is that it is subject to falsifiability, it's (usually) empirically proven. As has been mentioned, scientific theory does not claim to be some kind of universal truth. If a better informed theory is presented, then so be it. The strength of scienctif theories is that they realise the parameters of the real world.

I understand that science = fact and christianity = a good story :)

That's because the scared masses stick to this draconian ideology because they're scared of what happens when they die.............

What he said.

Correct - the issue is not religion per se, it is irrational thinking based on dogma and authority. Substitute god for nationalism, Kim Il-Sung or the little red book.... the issue is irrational thinking.

North Korea is not atheist. In North Korea, Kim Il-Sung is god. For example, the start of their calendar is his birth, the same way the start of our calendar was Jesus's birth.

You can when it's the reason why politicians here are against it.

Don't blame religion for your inability to kill your babies, yourself or indulge in a pointless relationship that will produce no offspring. The majority of cultures all over the world, of every religion and lack thereof reject your three sacred cows.

And?

You have no understanding of science whatsoever.

North Korea is an atheist state and punishes all of the above much more harshly than Australia.

:lol: :lol:
=d>

Me.

Because their medieval beliefs are an imposition on the life I lead under a supposedly "secular" state.

To take 3 obvious examples.

1) Abortion is still illegal in most Australian states.
2) Euthanasia is illegal in Australia.
3) Same sex marriage is illegal in Australia.

Get the fuck out of my life and I'll stay out of your religious ramblings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

I'm not sure.

Haha - I do understand it is a pedantic argument I am making. But what are forums for??? :d :d :d

Was he university educated in philosophy or a field of science?
If not, it can be difficult to grasp that atheism is not a belief system, because one is less likely to have been educated in thinking rationally & non-fallaciously.

I believe in science. :)

People call it a belief system because they draw the conclusion that it's a polar opposite to theism. Therefore, the association is that because theism is a belief system, atheism must be one too.

However the polar opposite of theism is anti-theism.

I had a massive debate on here like 2 years ago with AfromanGT over my person beliefs. You'd have taken issue with his view point on atheism. His opinion like a lot of people's is that because you're an atheist and you 'don't' believe, it is a belief system because you choose not to believe. It's ludicrous. I have to define myself as a non-theist these days to avoid the BS of belief systems.

I am an atheist. I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Admittedly, it is almost impossible to disprove there is a flying spaghetti monster.
I am an atheist. I don't believe in Zeus. Admittedly, it is almost impossible to disprove there is Zeus.
I am an atheist. I don't believe in kljadsncijsbadmxnciouhsdjvnadksjfbnv. Admittedly, it is almost impossible to disprove there is kljadsncijsbadmxnciouhsdjvnadksjfbnv.
How many other billions of cognitive concepts do we have to create the concept of an atheist for? And when you use the word atheist, which concept is atheist being applied to?
Hope you are getting the point

I am just basing it on my interactions with people - they struggle to grasp the inherent illogicality of labelling atheism a belief system

I know this is going to sound mega-pedantic, but I take issue with your point above.

I am an atheist, but I think that an atheist "belief" is the end product of a rationalist viewpoint, however it is still a belief to some extent. Let me explain...

The existence (or not) of a deity is something that cannot be disproven - it is almost impossible to disprove such a vague concept.

So if you look at the evidence, your conclusion would logically be that it is extremely unlikely that there is such a thing as god. But the next step, extrapolating to conclude that there IS NO GOD is a belief. A rationally constructed one, but a belief.

But I take your point that atheism is not a belief system in the way religions are.

I would be fascinated to see how long religious belief would exist for if we banned religious "education" prior to turning 18 years old.

:lol: oh you're such a superior being aren't you sweetie? Your critical thinking skills are just too far above everyone else's.....

Atheism is not a belief system. It was a word created due to existing belief in non-evidenced based deities.
If belief in deities never occurred, the word atheism would not exist.
Its difficult to explain this concept to people who lack critical thinking skills & who have grown up with religion around them.
In 300 years, atheism may disappear from the English lexicon altogether.

It will never exist. I feel like it's an unrealistic goal.

Look at Gay marriage. People will vote against it because of their religious beliefs. Therefore, they are imposing their religion on people who just want acceptance. The entire vote will be affected by religious beliefs. I know it's a tired and over-used example but it still holds true.

When I was in grade 6 I remember a religious person coming into our school and teaching us about creation and noah's flood. Not knowing any better I absorbed this information. This indoctrination of children who don't know any better is harmful.

:lol: exactly!

Interesting points quickflick, and I see what you are getting at.

I do agree with the "live and let live" maxim, and believe in a secular society, rather than imposing an "atheist" society. Imposing any belief on others is wrong. However, I do subscribe to the opinion that raising a child in a religious framework is essentially programming. But I also understand that for the most part, in societies like ours, this isn't necessarily harmful.

I would also differentiate between a 'militant atheist' just being an arsehole to people because they have a religious belief, and looking at institutional and systematic frameworks in society that are not rational.

Marriage equality is a perfect example - there is no rational basis to oppose it in a secular society, and most of the population is in favour of it. Yet, because of conservative Christian viewpoints within the political elite of both sides of politics, we still do not have it.

The reason I ascribe bad behaviour to the institutional aspects of religion is simply due to that old maxim "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The difference between religious organisations and bureaucratic organs of the state is that the state is organised on a rationalist approach. Of course there are many abuses of power there too, but we start from the assumption that they are flawed human organisations, and put in place appeals processes etc. There is ultimately a level of accountability.

Whereas religious institutions are unique in that they have people in power who are not accountable to anyone, because they are acting "on behalf of god". That is extremely dangerous. Now obviously totalitarian regimes have similar issues, but I would argue that they come from the same mindset as religions. They are ultimately messianic and irrational. They just replace god with ideology or nationalism.

So my issue is not religion per se, but irrationality.

Within Australian society especially, our secular mindset is so ingrained (even for most religious people) that we forget that mindset is a product of secularism, not religion.

Religion has been 'tamed' for the most part here.

So on an individual level I don't have an issue with people being religious because that religiosity exists within a secular framework. However I am very aware that whenever religious authority has obtained earthly powers they have abused it. Not because religion itself causes bad behaviour, but because power corrupts, and religious authorities don't have the safeguards against abuse of power that rational, secular-minded authorities do.

These debates remind me of the most brilliant book that I've ever read. To The Lighthouse by Virigina Woolf.

I advise anybody who has not read it to give it a try (it's tough going though). Not because of questions relating to religion, but other stuff.

One of the side themes of it always struck me as remarkably on the ball.

Basically, there's an English family of highly-educated, very bright upper-middle class people. They believe that religious dogma is rubbish. They think it's all silly. Yet they were all raised CofE.

By contrast, there's a Scottish chap who is having his university work supervised by their father. He is working class, a socialist, an ardent atheist and he makes everything political. The English family find him rather comical.

So the English people don't disagree with him, but they go about things very differently. They're not constantly trying to prove a point. They just happily go about their business. They have been brought up by religious institutions, but they don't subscribe to them.

I regard this as typical of a certain type of people (in England and to a lesser extent in Australia) whereby many have attended religious schools, they may even (nominally) be religious, but really they don't believe in it at all. They couldn't care less. Many will find this is typical of English, upper-middle class snobbery and find it contemptuous. But it seems to me that the English family are far more emotionally secure than the Scot, who is basically all about being a socialist and an atheist.

Edited by quickflick: 30/9/2015 04:33:30 AM

I think what people are pointing out is that, in today's society, many atheists take an excessively dogmatic, prescriptive approach.

People of faith feel like they're constantly being attacking. And not just attacked by logic and reason. Attacked by obsessive hatred and relentless hostility. Not all atheists behave in such a manner. But there are, unfortunately, certainly trends. It's not a case of people quietly going about their business. It's almost as if the atheists are becoming like Evangelical Christians of times gone by.



Sure. No argument there. But who actually cares what anyone believes? If you want to be totally and utterly rational about the mysteries of life, that's your prerogative. I applaud you for your logic and reason. There's no need to ram it down everybody's throat, though. If others want to believe that some man was the product of immaculate conception, walked on water and fed 5000 with a few loaves of bread and some fish then let them. Who really cares.

As far as I'm concerned, JS Mills was one of the most brilliant men ever to have lived. He made a crucial distinction. The difference between "harm" and "offence". People are perfectly free to do or believe anything that is offensive. You're perfectly free to believe, to do and to say things which are offensive. The strongest, most healthy societies in the world permit this. As long as it's not harmful, then fair play.

So if my neighbours are conservative Christians, then that's their prerogative. I couldn't care less.



Your response, with all due respect, is essentially wrong. Yes, the Christians who do good deeds are nice people. But there's more than that. If you want (correctly) to attack Christians for systemic cover-ups of sexual abuse and to suggest it's more than just a case of there being bad people out there, then you can't, in the same breath, suggest the good deeds are just a fluke. As far as I'm aware, you've not made such a suggestion, but you'd be quite right to do so.

But you can't claim that all the bad things are systemic and indicative of a rotten system and all the good things are just a fluke. If you claim to be a person of reason, this is an erroneously-deduced conclusion. It's not simply a case of there being bad people and good people who are religious. Where there's widespread incidence of charity, compassion and kindness, that's a fairly compelling argument for it being somewhat cultural.

I don't see why (some) atheists find this to be such a horrific thought.

Religions, or certain religions, have certain characteristics which create an environment in which certain bad things (such as covering up sexual abuse) and certain good things are more likely.

That's not to say that one needs to be religious to be a good person. That's not to say that the most kind, humane, selfless people have been religious and non-religious people don't measure up. It's simply saying that, for some religions, an environment of selflessness, devotion and compassion has developed.

Your response is typical of somebody who has either had an appalling personal experience with religion or does not know any specific religion well enough.

I went to Catholic schools, did the sacraments you do as a kid, have very religious grandparents but parents who, more or less, lapsed when I was a kid. From an age of being able to reason, I've not really considered myself Catholic. Basically, I've never believed in the immaculate conception, I think Jesus was probably a good man but a very gifted magician, etc.

Nevertheless, the kind of Catholic school I went to was a good one, in terms of the good they do. It was a Jesuit one. The Jesuits are responsible for the largest refugee aid organisations in Australia, some of the most proactive social service organisations for the needy in Australia and throughout the world. For the most part, they genuinely are good people. We met with elderly Jesuits who had spent over 40 years working with the most impoverished people in the world in Indian slums.

It's not to say there are non-religious people who aren't every bit as kind and selfless. I've worked with some and will certainly attest to their charity and selflessness. But this is not a coincidence. This is not simply a case of the religious good people being good people to begin with. My grandfather arrived in Australia as a small boy from England with a very poor mother and no father, as he had run off. My great-grandmother went up to the Jesuits and begged them to provide my grandfather with an education, even though she was penniless. They were very compassionate people, they said that would be fine.

It's hardly surprising that when those poor lads were brutally executed for drug-trafficking earlier on in the year, it was religious chaplains who were with them until the end, helping them to remain strong. The Catholic chaplain is apparently not particularly popular on account of all the work he has done in opposing the death penalty.

According to Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the most brilliant scholars on Nazi Germany (and a Jew, himself), Pope Pius XII and the Catholics in the Vatican, were largely responsible for hiding 6730 Jews in monasteries and convents around Rome when the Nazis did their round-up in October 1943. There were 477 Jews hidden in the Vatican City. Sadly 1015 Jews were caught by the Nazis. But still, the amount they successfully hid was phenomenal.

This is not purely down to them being good people in the first place. It's not just the people doing this. These religions (their institutions and especially their culture) facilitate these kind of good works.

Edited by quickflick: 30/9/2015 04:40:14 AM

Actually, they do accept that conclusion. They just also acknowledge that it's not possible to be certain and leave it there.

Very logical. Plus we're hedging our bets ;)