An Atheist's Creed

[C1ay]

This thread is for those who choose to believe in atheism.

 

Atheism is not something to believe in, it is simply a term used to describe people that are not theist, a·theist literally means not·theist.

[Thunderbird]

Beware: the concept of "God" being used above is limited to the archetypal Pentobaptifanatiluthercathevangofundicostalists' God. There are others from more Pagan-like belief systems that exclude a role for God of "Approver-Judge-Punisher," one which not only is highly limited and anthropomorphic, but is just plain bad parenting if you're going to go around calling Him "Father" all the time....

 

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, :lol:

Buffy

 

Your right on here Buffy. I like my "Liberal Community minded" church because they tolerate my Pagan mother earth centric views. I like the dichotomy, I prefer it to divisions and exclusivity of belief systems.

 

I am not familiar with a heavenly father, but I do have mother God, it is the Earth, Just call me a tree hugging bastard.:D

[modest]

I am asking only about those things that are supported by empirical evidence.

 

If something cannot be supported by empirical evidence then it is not a scientific theory.

 

Matter and energy that is substantive, real, obsrervable, testable, and falsifiable.

What you have are effects. Know one knows what causes these effects.

 

This is true - to an extent. There's a lot more to learn about nature. The theories we have work well, but they are not the end of the story. There is more to understand which is why we have the scientific method.

 

No one can show that there is a thing such as "matter" that can create these effects instead of perhaps a God.

 

Current theories of matter, space, motion, etc don't include God. Science has not yet found a way to put God in the equations of physics and make them work. Science is only useful if it makes predictions that work. Describing an atom with subatomic particles is more useful in making predictions than describing it with God. It is simply a constraint of science that it needs to be useful and consistent with evidence.

 

If energy is substantive then where is it on display for the rest of us to see?

 

Everything that you touch, see, taste, feel, or smell is energy.

 

You can only theorize about what may be material about the universe. Empirical evidence does not support theories.

 

Which scientific theory is not supported by evidence?

 

Theories are imagined substitutes for that which we do not know. The illusion that any of them defines anything material about the universe results from the theorist meticulously fitting their chosen theory to known empirical evidence about effects.

 

A theory in science is not the same as "theory" used by the layperson. In science, a theory is supported by evidence. It makes predictions. It can be tested right or wrong. This is why God doesn't deserve the title 'theory'. If there were a scientific theory of God could it make any good predictions? Could it support evidence and give useful answers?

 

Science is held up to a higher standard than religion when it comes to this kind of thing. Newton's theory of gravity was right 99.999% of the time and it still wasn't good enough for science. What if religion had to keep those standards? The pope would be out of a job :lol:

 

No one understands the "nature [The quality or qualities that make something what it is.]" of the universe.

 

Those are the questions science is trying to answer. If you think God can do better then use Him to predict the mass of the Higgs boson. Otherwise, why get in the way?

 

What we have learned are many of the things that it does. No one knows why they occur. In other words we do not know what is cause. Substituting theory for cause tells us about the thoughts of scientists, but does not further our understanding of the nature of the universe.

 

Once again you demonstrate that you don't understand what a theory is. Check it out on wikipedia: Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

After reading that tell us if God is: theory, fact, or neither.

 

I am happy to drop this whole matter. This thread is for those who choose to believe in atheism. I do not see this creed as a scientific statement. I see it as just another creed.

 

I agree that creed is not something scientific.

 

-modest

[James Putnam]

It certainly appears to me that atheism is something in which someone believes. If they do not believe in God then they appear to believe in substitutes such as the theory of electric charge. God is not needed because there is believed to be something else that is substantive, i.e. something with powers separate from God. Both sides believe in their own interpretations of what is cause or are causes.

 

If you are saying that atheists understand that they do not know the cause for the operation of the universe, then that is fine. Neither do I. But I know I am not an atheist, because I know that I do not know the cause for the operation of the universe. Therefore, to me, there is something more to atheism than just saying they do not believe in God.

 

Or perhaps atheists conclude, without credible evidence, that the idea of God just doesn't appeal to them. That is fine also, but that is not a scientific statement. I have no problem with someone not believing in God. I do have a problem with atheists claiming our scientific knowledge as evidence for the validity of their belief. Our scientific knowledge does not prove atheism. It doesn't even point to aethism. It is separate from belief systems. It is knowledge about effects for which the causes are open to interpretation. It is when causes are interpreted that the belief systems for all interpreters become mixed with scientific knowledge.

 

James

[modest]

It certainly appears to me that atheism is something in which someone believes.

 

Some atheists believe strongly that there is no god. Other's just aren't religious.

 

If they do not believe in God then they appear to believe in substitutes such as the theory of electric charge.

 

No. There are many theistic people who understand and find usefulness in science and I'm sure there are atheists who don't know or care anything about science. Science is not a substitute for God and God is not a substitute for science.

 

God is not needed because there is believed to be something else that is substantive, i.e. something with powers separate from God.

 

Where are you getting this? Science is only out to replace God in your mind. In reality it has no such motivations. Science will do its best to explain the universe with whatever evidence we can find regardless if people are atheists or theists or whatever.

 

Both sides believe in their own interpretations of what is cause or are causes.

 

Science will try and find the causes and explain what we observe. There aren't two sides to that.

 

If you are saying that atheists understand that they do not know the cause for the operation of the universe, then that is fine. Neither do I. But I know I am not an atheist, because I know that I do not know the cause for the operation of the universe.

 

James, your belief in God is fine. Just don't look to science to support, defend, or attack that belief. Science has to do with evidence and belief has to do with faith despite lack of evidence. It is wrong for theism to persuade science and it's wrong for science to be motivated by theism.

 

Or perhaps atheists conclude, without credible evidence, that the idea of God just doesn't appeal to them. That is fine also, but that is not a scientific statement.

 

It isn't a scientific statement - but it sure can be informed by science.

 

I have no problem with someone not believing in God. I do have a problem with atheists claiming our scientific knowledge as evidence for the validity of their belief. Our scientific knowledge does not prove atheism. It doesn't even point to aethism.

 

It doesn't point to a god and atheism is a lack of belief in God. I think you could say that right now science does point to atheism. But, that does not mean science is atheistic [meaning a belief in no god] - there is a difference.

 

It is separate from belief systems. It is knowledge about effects for which the causes are open to interpretation. It is when causes are interpreted that the belief systems for all interpreters become mixed with scientific knowledge.

 

The religious claim that effects are caused by God is fine - it is based on faith and cannot be tested.

 

The scientific claim that effects are caused by God is not good. It has never been observed and there is no evidence for it.

 

-modest

[InfiniteNow]

 

 

 

 

[Thunderbird]

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

Me too Albert.

 

 

 

 

 

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

This is were science can go wrong in the same way religion goes wrong. The world is a sacred mysterious place, and is much more than the sum of its parts. More than we can Imagine. One can never fully comprehend that which is vastly more complex than ones self.

 

 

 

 

 

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

I once heard someone say... "The more I learn about science the less mysterious the world becomes."

 

If this is the case they are not gaining the complexity and beauty that surrounds us, but merely decaying away like some solar powered crap producing machine . From studying evolution I do know this ... The universe retains the attractors of information. The best state to attain this info is a state of awe, I think this was the driving force behind Alert Einstein’s discoveries . If the ten commandments were actually written by a wise god, or even a wise scientist, it would have had that as a commandments.

 

 

 

Religion is concerned with man's attitude towards nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with human mutual relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. (Albert Einstein, 1948)

[C1ay]

It certainly appears to me that atheism is something in which someone believes. If they do not believe in God then they appear to believe in substitutes such as the theory of electric charge. God is not needed because there is believed to be something else that is substantive, i.e. something with powers separate from God. Both sides believe in their own interpretations of what is cause or are causes.

 

You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of what the term atheist means or where it came from. Atheist stems from the Greek word atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god". It literally means not·theist. It means nothing more than that and doesn't imply any particular belief in anything.

 

If an atheist believes in other things it is because they believe in other things, not because they are an atheist. If they believe in the theory of electric charge then it is because they are a scientist, not because they are an atheist. To even make such a suggestion implies that Christians which believe in electric charge are also atheists. It is an attempt to add meaning to a word that just isn't there.

 

FWIW, in addition to being an atheist I am also a humanist and a skeptic. These labels more clearly define what I do and do not believe in since the atheist label only conveys the fact that I am not theist and nothing else.

[Tormod]

I think it's okay for an atheist to write his own creed.

 

It is, however, quite ignorant to ask that the same creed apply to all atheists (like one of the comments on the linked page asks). If atheists had to answer to a creed, they would no longer be free to form their own opinion but will fall into the trap of having their mindset forced into the lines of something written by others - as is the case of the religions of submission, such as Christianity and Islam.

 

A creed - or any declaration - is prone to interpretation and would lead to fractions and fighting. How many wars have been fought over subtle variety of religious thought? (Sikhs vs Sunnis, Protestants vs Catholics are just some examples).

 

Atheism has no creed and no gods, and is definitely not a religion. It can be defined as a belief system, but it is a belief system which supports the free and untainted mind, and is open for all kinds of skepticism (as C1ay pointed out). In fact, nothing stops an atheist from believing anything, but he (or she) is not forced to believe anything, either.

 

Yet I have never heard of an atheist war.

[Pyrotex]

...Would someone who agrees with him please explain their understanding of this meaning of the word "material"? Please include the part that precludes the existence of God. ...What does the existence of orderliness have to do with proving or disproving the existence of God? James

James,

I agree fully with the "Atheist's Creed". Please allow me to explain, if I can.

 

If the universe is indeed "material" (just matter, energy) then this would exclude the existence of any deity that was NOT made up of matter and energy. Most theologies make no effort to determine just what their deities are "made of".

 

Now, if the universe is material, and there IS a diety, then it follows that the diety must also be material and is subject to physical laws and physical limitations. This would be a REAL sticking point for most christians--who like to think of their diety as "above" all that and unlimited.

 

Again, the existence of "laws" that govern the behavior of matter and energy -- and the orderliness that comes from such laws -- does NOT preclude the existence of a diety. However, if TRUE, then it would imply that the diety(s) are ALSO governed by physical laws.

 

You can have your Science and your Atheist's Creed AND your god at the same time. BUT, the diety is probably scaled down much too small for your tastes. The diety would be composed of ordinary matter and energy, though possibly in unique configurations. It would still be bound by the speed of light, and could not see into the future to a different degree than we can. It would prolly find the Sun uncomfortably hot and Pluto lethally cold. It could only be in one place at a time, unless it could clone itself. But then there would be TWO dieties. I assume you would have a hard time dealing with that, too.

 

So, there we are. The Atheist's Creed does NOT exclude one or more gods. But it may still lead to unpleasant conclusions ABOUT those god(s).

[pgrmdave]

An interesting little creed, but it's definitely not for everybody. For example, there is some philosophy in there that is unsupported, for example, "it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest" - Why? How? and who decides what the "fullest" is? Religions attempt to answer these questions, whether they do it well or poorly is a matter for debate. And there are different types of atheists just like there are different types of theists. Some are rather apathetic, believing or not believing only because it is easier, or because they don't really care too much. This, I have found, is the category most people fall into. A small section of both atheists and theists are so convinced that they are right that they can become argumentative, and those are the people we hear from the most, skewing our perceptions towards the extremes.

[Not half- but whole!]

I think it's okay for an atheist to write his own creed.

A creed - or any declaration - is prone to interpretation and would lead to fractions and fighting. How many wars have been fought over subtle variety of religious thought? (Sikhs vs Sunnis, Protestants vs Catholics are just some examples).

.......

 

Yet I have never heard of an atheist war.

 

It must be time for the great atheist schism....

 

Perhaps a counsel... I heard Nicea is nice this time of year...

[James Putnam]

From Modest:

Science has to do with evidence and belief has to do with faith despite lack of evidence.

 

Is electric charge the substantive cause of electromagnetic effects? If the answer is yes, then: What evidence supports this idea?

 

James

[Tormod]

Is electric charge the substantive cause of electromagnetic effects? If the answer is yes, then: What evidence supports this idea?

 

You are posing a scientific question. What is your point? Just because some things are not explained does not mean that you need to construct a religion in order to believe it.

[James Putnam]

Hi Tormod,

 

I don't have a religion and I am not interested in building one. This discussion, from my point of view, is intended to be scientific. I don't know any prophets. I have never experienced revelation. The positions I take are not the result of reading someone's religious writings. I used the word God instead of intelligence because it saves messages. When I speak of intelligence my critics insist that I mean God. Still, I mean nothing more than original intelligence whatever its form may have been or is still. One thing is for certain, nothing I say about intelligence has anything to do with personal or human like dieties. Nothing I say has any connection to Creationism or Intelligent Design in their popular senses.

 

C1ay insists that I can assume nothing more than that atheists do not believe in God. Still, at the risk of commiting another gross misunderstanding on my part, I presume that it is reasonable to assume that atheists accept the concept of cause and effect. I think this is an important point at which to make a clear distinction between myself and atheists. If I were religious and spoke as if I understood God's role, I would take the position that cause is God. I know that many religious people don't do this in such a direct manner. They may say something like: Yes there is electric charge, but God made electric charge. Therefore, God is the original cause for the effect. I do not do this.

 

Presuming that atheists believe in causes, if the cause is not God, then it must be something else. It is that "something else" that I wish to isolate and discuss. I presume again that one of these causes, that atheists accept, is electric charge. Since I did not receive an answer to my last question concerning electric charge, I will have to presume at my own risk, at least for the sake of argument, that atheists do believe that electric charge is the cause of electromagnetic effects. If we can get past this point, then I do have a point to make.

 

No one knows what is electric charge. But, this is not the only important property that is not explained. I said earlier that: We do not know what is cause. Making that same point using different words: No cause is explained. All causes are unknown. It seems to me that substitutes are invented to fill the void. They are given names, and perhaps their own units of measurement. They are called "natural" causes. naming them does not make them known. But, it sure seems to make them seem known. They are even brought to "life" in discussions that often include atheists. They are brought to "life" when it is argued that science does not need to address God. Instead, science, very pridefully, points to "natural" causes.

 

I used the word "pridefully" on purpose. I am connecting this to the subject of this thread: "An Atheists Creed" by physicist Mano Singham. I sensed great pride in the words: "I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles." If his material universe relies upon concepts such as the existence of "matter" or of natural causes such as "electric charge", then I think he is believing his concept of the nature of the universe without credible evidence. I think it is not a scientific satement. It is a matter of chosing a particular belief system. I think this kind of representation by a physicist is harmful to scientific understanding.

 

As I said in an earlier message, I am willing to drop this matter. I do not wish to change the purpose of the thread. I have opinions of my own that can be stated in other more appropriate threads. My intent was to challenge the concept of a "material universe" in the sense that I thought atheists used it. If I am wrong in my understanding, then I will move on to other things in other threads.

 

James

[InfiniteNow]

James,

 

Well done on your response. It was well thought out, well written, and articulated your points quite clearly. I applaud and thank you. My concern is this. You are discussing the classic "gaps," where so many have attempted to find a god. The gaps are getting smaller with each passing moment, with each new experiment and with each new idea.

 

The gaps are not a safe place for "something else" to reside, since the mysteriousness of that "something else" is continually emaciating the more we learn. To stop learning and filling those "gaps" with actualities is a bit of a dead end which I, personally, would prefer not to traverse.

 

Take care. ;)

[Tormod]

C1ay insists that I can assume nothing more than that atheists do not believe in God. Still, at the risk of commiting another gross misunderstanding on my part, I presume that it is reasonable to assume that atheists accept the concept of cause and effect.

 

James, good post. I think the gross misunderstanding you are making is to assume that atheists think alike. They do not: They do not belong to a common group nor do they represent a certain type of person.

 

And why is it so important to point out that atheists have beliefs? There is a vast difference between a religious world view where the supernatural is the basis for existence, and an atheist world view where there is no room for the supernatural. That atheists and theists *disagree* on the existence of anything supernatural is, well, natural!

 

So while the phrase "many atheists believe..." could be correct, the phrase "assume that atheists..." would be stereotyping and most likely wrong.

 

From here on, I am reading "some atheists" rather than "atheists" in your post and my responses will be based on that.

 

Presuming that atheists believe in causes, if the cause is not God, then it must be something else. It is that "something else" that I wish to isolate and discuss. I presume again that one of these causes, that atheists accept, is electric charge.

 

You say it yourself: There are many causes and one of them may be electric charge.

 

Since I did not receive an answer to my last question concerning electric charge, I will have to presume at my own risk, at least for the sake of argument, that atheists do believe that electric charge is the cause of electromagnetic effects.

 

Some atheists probably believe that. If that is the basis of your argument I would argue that some theists probably believe that, too, so it doesn't apply more to atheists than anyone else, does it.

 

No one knows what is electric charge. But, this is not the only important property that is not explained. I said earlier that: We do not know what is cause.

 

There are many explanations for electric charge, and I dare say science has a reasonable understanding of it considering that we are able to use i for many purposes.

 

One example of school lessons for electric charge:

Electric Charge

 

Making that same point using different words: No cause is explained. All causes are unknown.

 

Now this is where you and I will probably disagree. I think, as an educated person (why does it matter which belief system I belong to here), that we do not have to *know* the causes for understanding an effect. That is not a cop-out. It means there are things I don't understand and which I know that people are working to find out.

 

Basically, electric charge is a property of atoms, and can be measured and tested. I am not sure why this is something mysterious.

 

They are brought to "life" when it is argued that science does not need to address God. Instead, science, very pridefully, points to "natural" causes.

 

Where? A strange claim IMHO.

 

If his material universe relies upon concepts such as the existence of "matter" or of natural causes such as "electric charge", then I think he is believing his concept of the nature of the universe without credible evidence. I think it is not a scientific satement. It is a matter of chosing a particular belief system. I think this kind of representation by a physicist is harmful to scientific understanding.

 

He is an atheist, not a scientist. Are you saying that only scientists can be atheists, or that atheists need to seek out scientists in order to have their creeds checked?

 

This thread is about an atheist's creed as posted on the web, and whether this can apply to more people than one. I have stated my views on that in another post. It is not about what qualifications an atheists should have in order to write his own creed (in my eyes, nobody should set any demands on that, as atheism refutes submission to other belief systems).

 

My intent was to challenge the concept of a "material universe" in the sense that I thought atheists used it. If I am wrong in my understanding, then I will move on to other things in other threads.

 

I think you are wrong in stereotyping atheists and thinking that your mechanical world view is an example of where atheists go wrong.

 

Atheism != science. Therefore, atheist's creeds will not be scientific documents. They will rather be statements of reasons for their way of thought.