Atheism 101

You know, there are a lot of colleges out there that are christian colleges. People have a choice, go to a public instution that accepts government money and cannot teach theology, or go to one of the many fine christian colleges that are able to.

http://www.college-scholarships.com/chri...

I can see your point if there are no alternatives but as you can see, there are many.

Sam,

I think there are many Christians who would take umbrage to your challenge of their beliefs. You say that they don't truly believe, because if they did, they would act differently.

First, lets examine your claim in respect to abortion. Many Christians are pro-choice because they do not believe that life begins at conception, but at a later point in development. The Bible is mute on this particular subject. I have yet to see a bible verse that claims life begins at conception.

Other Christians DO believe that life begins at conception. They believe that abortion is morally wrong. These people would never have an abortion, nor would they ever advise anyone to. They might even shun those who choose to have abortions. But they still recognize that their view (life begins at conception) is a religious one. And knowing that the United States is a country of ALL faiths (and non-faiths), they choose not to project their own religious views onto their fellow citizens.

The bible seems to be largely open to interpretation. Some people interpret it literally. They would claim that it's laws are absolute and must be followed. For instance, Leviticus 20:13, which states that gays should be put to death.

I'm assuming, Sam, that you do not want homosexuals to be put to death. I'm also assuming that at least some of the people who believe that would make the assertion that YOU are not a Christian, because you are not following the inerrant word of God (as they interpret it).

Many atheists did vote for Obama (though I wouldn't suggest that ALL of them did). But I don't think it's because they think he doubts his faith. It's because they believe that Obama will put his religious views aside and do what he thinks best for the country as a whole. Or maybe they simply think that his interpretation of Christianity is more in-line with their own personal views than some Republican's views on Christianity (like Sarah Palin).

"I mean really, where have the Christians been fighting us?"

Firstly, let me say that most atheists fight NOT for atheism to become public policy, but for secularism (I admit, that they seem very similar on the surface). So I will assume when you speak about "fighting us", you are referring to fighting secularism. (although many people from all faiths, including Christianity, fight for secularism)

Christianity has been fighting secularism for decades now. Christians fought for "In God we Trust" to become the national motto in 1956. They fought for "under God" to be inserted in the pledge in 1954. They fought for creationism in the classroom at the Scopes trial in 1926 (a fight which still rages today, see Dover v Kitzmiller 2005). Many Christian organizations

exist today that try to push Christian values and ideals into public life.

And certainly (contrary to your claim) talk of God is allowed in colleges. There are entire courses devoted to Christianity, Easter Religion, Islam, etc. (much like the atheism class you are supposing). Additionally there are many Christian and inter-faith groups on campuses all across the country. And as bigDawg already pointed out, there are entire Christian Universities.

Ooops, Correction on the music: I believe 'world goes by,' was supposed to have read 'days go by.' Shades of Freudian slips. Shaloooooooom-ha everyone. Arley

G5,

I didn't miss the part where you said that the scientific method studies the universe through observation and reason. And causality is hugely important to science and logical thinking, no doubt. I was just expressing that causality is not the "basis" of the scientific method, but that "evidence and observation" was.

Causality is important for lab experiments. But sometimes laboratory experiments are infeasible or impossible when using the scientific method. For instance, we cannot re-create the big bang in a laboratory setting (until the LHC is turned back on anyway). However, we can still use the scientific method to make observations and formulate hypothesis about the phenomena. In cases like this, causality is not useful, but observation is. This is why I would consider observation/evidence the "basis" of the method, and not causality. Although I admit that causality has a high degree of importance.

I have not committed the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" fallacy, as I have made no claim as to whether or not god exists. I have not asserted that he does not exist (or that he was not responsible for the big bang). I've only claimed that there is no evidence for his existence (or his involvement with the big bang). The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, certainly. But the rational stance is to not believe something until there is evidence.

Also, the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" works the other way around. I cannot claim that god does not exist because there is no evidence for his existence (and I do not make that claim). Conversely, you (and no one) cannot make the claim that he does exist because there is no evidence for his non-existence.

If accuse me of making the claim that the god hypothesis is false because there is no evidence (I do not make that claim). You can also not assert that the god hypothesis is true because it has not been proven false. (I am unclear as to whether you are actually making this assertion).

The "God of the Gaps" argument is essentially a "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" fallacy, because you are claiming that the god hypothesis is true because it has not been disproved.

Perhaps you have a different understanding of the term "atheist". An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in a god (or gods). NOT someone who denies the existence of a god (although they would be considered atheists as well). Most atheists are "agnostic atheists", who do not claim that they are 100% sure of gods non-existence. But still do not believe in god due to lack of evidence for his existence. Essentially, they don't believe in god like they don't believe in bigfoot. There is no evidence for either's existence, so they do not believe either exists. However, they cannot assert with 100% confidence that neither exists.

And true, scientific knowledge is not unconditional, and it constantly changes to reflect our best understanding of the universe. This is WHY the scientific method provides the best explanation, because it's nature is to CHANGE. All of the claims you made about science changing over time is precisely why it is the method that will give us the best AVAILABLE information. And absolutely, science cannot (nor does it claim to) provide knowledge that is universal and unchanging (mathematics does). And you are certainly welcome to to seek out knowledge from other sources. The problem is when the knowledge you seek out in another fashions contradicts with science and you believe it to be more correct.

For instance, the current best scientific explanation for the speciation of our planet is evolution. The consensus is overwhelming among the scientific community that the theory of evolution is largely correct. Of course, there is contention about specific parts of evolution (punctuated equilibrium for example), but this should not be mistaken as a controversy about the validity of the general principals of evolution or the theory as a whole.

Some people have looked elsewhere for a description of of how species originated, and found the bible to be a more satisfactory answer. Proponents of creationism/intelligent design claim that it was a designer (god) who created all of the species). However, this hypothesis has not held its weight in the scientific community, and is largely disregarded due to lack of convincing evidence. There is not a real controversy about evolution vs ID in the scientific community. In fact, there are astoundingly few articles on intelligent design SUBMITTED to scientific journals.

So the issue is that people who have looked for answers OUTSIDE of science, have brought back their ideas to the scientific community where they have been determined to be invalid. However, these people still think that these ideas should be taught in science classes, either as fact or as a valid competing theory (and ID is neither).

If people want ID to be taught in a religious class, most secularists would have no problem with it. It is just when people try and push a hypothesis that has been rejected by modern science into a science class that secularists become upset.

The "push" for evolution in the classroom has become politicized. But it was not by the left. Evolution belongs in the science classroom because it is an extremely important scientific theory. The politicization is happening because ID proponents are pushing a falsified theory into the classroom that is more in accordance with their religious beliefs. Evolution is not "junk science". It is an elegant theory that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees is generally correct.

"Junk Science" connotes that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives. ID falls into this category much easier than evolution, as most of it's proponents for ID are driven by their religious ideology.

"Those attempting to use science as a philosophy of life are in for trouble, because that's not what science is or does". It depends on the type of philosophy you are referring to.

Natural Philosophy is the objective study of nature and the physical world. It was the precursor of modern science. So to use science as a way to investigate the physical world (natural philosophy) is fine.

Moral Philosophy (ethics) is the study encompassing proper conduct and good living. The physical sciences are not useful to this type of philosophy. For instance, natural selection would suggest that we let the sick/disabled die. However, our moral philosophy says that we should help them.

Metaphysical Philosophy (metaphysics) investigates the principals that transcend reality. "Why am I here?". The physical sciences do not attempt to answer these questions.

So to use science for your natural philosophy is fine. For your moral philosophy, it is not helpful, and you can't use it as your metaphysical philosophy.

Personally, I find that reason and logic are enough to determine my moral and metaphysical philosophies.

I wish that navyblue had been more specific as to the "number", and perhaps the identities, of those "numbers" of founders who stated that religion, specifically the christian religion, must be the basis of morality.I believe one might have stated that and he was one of those convinced of his own rectitude.

And while that one was putting forward that belief the prime author of the constitution was making statements like,"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

And:"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

And:"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

For one so seemingly convince of their rectitude and righteousness the prospect of the existence of atheists sure seems to make ole Sam nervous.