Should Atheists Shut Up about God, since they don't believe in God?

[Willamena]

Do you understand how black holes work? Obviously not, no one does.

Haha!

No one can get close enough or find a way to analyze them effectively. We only know they exist. We know some of the properties of a black hole, but not how they relate to one another. To say "I don't believe in black holes because I don't understand them" is asanine.

We know they are described in a valid theory. Their existence is substantiated by theory. That doesn't mean they (objectively) exist.

Besides, I do understand how black holes work.

 

[Atheologian]

Well, atheists do that too.


Steadfastness in what one believes lends weight to the idea that they have sound reason for their belief, so that can be a good or bad thing.


Of course.

I think it can be more harmful than helpful in a society like ours, that is pushing the boundaries of it's moral character to include a broader range of people.

 

[Atheologian]

Haha!


We know they are described in a valid theory. Their existence is substantiated by theory. That doesn't mean they (objectively) exist.

Besides, I do understand how black holes work.

No. You don't. You know the current THEORY. This is the idea that the evidence best supports.
we can locate them by detecting their gravitational fields, and the way they effect light.
there are various theories of event horizons, anti-matter particles and other associated traits, but the black hole is still a mystery.

 

[Willamena]

No. You don't.

You are obviously steadfast in this belief. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

You know the current THEORY. This is the idea that the evidence best supports.

Understanding black holes is no more or less than having an understanding of the theory that describes them.

 

[Atheologian]

You are obviously steadfast in this belief. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?


Understanding black holes is no more or less than having an understanding of the theory that describes them.

No, that just says you understand the theory ABOUT black holes, not that you understand how they work and what they are.
The same goes for the sub-atomic particle. You don't know what it is. You only know the current popular theory that underwent peer-review.
To relate this back to the topic AGAIN,
understanding God is not the same as understanding the real universe, anyway, because we don't have any evidence of God. We don't have experiments or data to verify his existance. Therefore, he exists only in theory. Understanding the theory of god, in THIS case, IS understanding God, or rather the IDEA of God, which is all there substantially is.

 

[Willamena]

No, that just says you understand the theory ABOUT black holes, not that you understand how they work and what they are.
The same goes for the sub-atomic particle. You don't know what it is. You only know the current popular theory that underwent peer-review.

That suggests that there is some "truth" as yet undefined (undescribed by theory). Do you believe that? If so, what is your belief based on?

 

[Atheologian]

That suggests that there is some "truth" as yet undefined (undescribed by theory). Do you believe that? If so, what is your belief based on?

LOL A theory does not claim to cover the whole "truth" about anything. That's why it's a theory.
A theory, by DEFINITION, is something that evidence supports, but is subject to change.
That's why it's not considered a LAW
You do realize that Theories change over time, as more evidence is gathered?

 

[Willamena]

LOL A theory does not claim to cover the whole "truth" about anything. That's why it's a theory.
A theory, by DEFINITION, is something that evidence supports, but is subject to change.
That's why it's not considered a LAW

A theory does claim to cover what is presently known about a thing. If you suggest that there is more to know, you delve into the area of faith.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, there is the law of gravity and the theory of gravity. I would say its a matter on how things are studied.

 

[Atheologian]

A theory does claim to cover what is presently known about a thing. If you suggest that there is more to know, you delve into the area of faith.

No. you delve into the area of RESEARCH.
I really hope your just trying to be a pain in the neck, because you are starting to sound ridiculous.
A theory claims to cover what is PRESENTLY KNOWN, not EVERYTHING.
Basically, using your logic, I could say that wanting to know more about Evolution is being faithful.
That does not make a lick of sense.
I think you're messing with me...

 

[Atheologian]

Well, there is the law of gravity and the theory of gravity. I would say its a matter on how things are studied.

they also refer to two seperate and distinct phenomena, regarding gravity on the macro scale, and gravity on the micro scale.

 

[Willamena]

No. you delve into the area of RESEARCH.
A theory claims to cover what is PRESENTLY KNOWN, not EVERYTHING.

Unless "research" somehow knows the future, I stand by what I said.

Basically, using your logic, I could say that wanting to know more about Evolution is being faithful.

No, but claiming that there is more to evolution to know is faith.

 

[Atheologian]

Unless "research" somehow knows the future, I stand by what I said.


No, but claiming that there is more to evolution to know is faith.

No it is entirely different than faith. It's simply the knowledge that we don't know everything. Faith has nothing to do with it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Atheists claim that God does not exist. This goes against everything man has learned about his "soul", or "spirit" and the natural world around us. In a discussion of the nature of God, does an Atheist have anything useful to say? How can you comment on something you don't believe, therefore could not possibly comprehend?

I for one do not believe in God, but I do believe that the soul or spirit is an aspect of the natural world around us. Spirit can be defined as an activating or causative factor or principal. Energy and matter have this animating principal. Atoms are vibrational and animate, have an action/reaction, not much different that life itself I believe. That which is Spirit (the animating factor) does not have to be a "supernatural" thing, nor does it necessarily require faith. I believe that atheists, as much as they are shunned by god-believers, are closer to understanding the truth about nature and existence. This universe and existence is a natural one, the "supernatural" is for fantasy books and science fiction. But that is my opinion.

 

[Atheologian]

I for one do not believe in God, but I do believe that the soul or spirit is an aspect of the natural world around us. Spirit can be defined as an activating or causative factor or principal. Energy and matter have this animating principal. Atoms are vibrational and animate, have an action/reaction, not much different that life itself I believe. That which is Spirit (the animating factor) does not have to be a "supernatural" thing, nor does it necessarily require faith. I believe that atheists, as much as they are shunned by god-believers, are closer to understanding the truth about nature and existence. This universe and existence is a natural one, the "supernatural" is for fantasy books and science fiction. But that is my opinion.

So how would you realate that to a discussion of the role of God in society?
In issues concerning civil rights, and what constitutes a life, you might differ from an atheist, but in matters of "God's Law" you might differ from theists. Is that okay to assume?

 

[ellenjanuary]

I don't believe in atheists. I don't see atheists arguing against god, I see them arguing against god's foolish; so, no.

 

[Atheologian]

I don't believe in atheists. I don't see atheists arguing against god, I see them arguing against god's foolish; so, no.

That would make a good sig...

Anyway, some atheists respect the rights of others to have faith, or believe in "God" and some don't. We don't all see the religious as fools. I might see those that blindly follow and never question as fools. I won't say that most believers fit into the fool category, I'm aware that they don't. Aren't you being unfair in assuming we all want to label believers as fools?

 

[ellenjanuary]

That would make a good sig...

Anyway, some atheists respect the rights of others to have faith, or believe in "God" and some don't. We don't all see the religious as fools. I might see those that blindly follow and never question as fools. I won't say that most believers fit into the fool category, I'm aware that they don't. Aren't you being unfair in assuming we all want to label believers as fools?

No, sir; merely simplifying. That's the term I use for those who use religion out of context. The only purpose for god is for the individual to find comfort in god. Religion aids in finding and sharing that comfort. It is no substitute for wisdom, compassion, intelligence, reason, nor logic.

 

[Atheologian]

No, sir; merely simplifying. That's the term I use for those who use religion out of context. The only purpose for god is for the individual to find comfort in god. Religion aids in finding and sharing that comfort. It is no substitute for wisdom, compassion, intelligence, reason, nor logic.

I think i understand the context now... thought you were being sarcastic.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Besides, people generally don't believe in god. They believe in books, they believe in what they're told, they believe in whatever gives them an advantage over another; I don't see a lot of belief in god.