Is Atheism mature?

[Asperser]

Any scientist worth his salt would point out that there is no science that debunks the existence of a deity, because science and God have no business together. The question of God is not a question answered by science, nor is it a question science is even equipped to answer by its very design. Science is simply the testing and categorizing of knowledge in an attempt to understand the world around us. Because God cannot be tested, proven, disproven, or studied, it does not fall into the purview of science anymore than the notion of a soul. That fact does not denote its lack of existence, however. It simply means that it does not fit into the realm of science.

I'd disagree. God(s) in religion, at the very least Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, have been tangible entities that not only physically intervene in many stories, but have had an active role in shaping events in the past, present, and future in the world. The concept may not be testable today, but in the far future that may not be necessarily true.

The notion of "atheistic science" has only become really popular lately, but science is not inherently atheistic or theistic; it's simply a method to gathering, testing, and expanding knowledge. The fact is, however, that the pursuit of science and the knowledge it gives us, and the notion of religious belief, are actually quite mutually exclusive areas of thought. They do not intersect; one deals with the material world, one deals expressly with things beyond it.

I disagree. I don't see why you are making a distinction between the spiritual and the material world. Science seeks to explain through tests and trials how the universe works. If the spirit exists. It is a part of how this universe works. There is nothing mutually exclusive about it. There is also nothing that says it can't be tested. Only that as far as we can tell with today's technology we can't prove or disprove the existence of god. We can, however, say certain acts of faith such as miracles and prayers most likely don't have the effect people think the do.

[Scribz]

Any scientist worth his salt would point out that there is no science that debunks the existence of a deity, because science and God have no business together. The question of God is not a question answered by science, nor is it a question science is even equipped to answer by its very design. Science is simply the testing and categorizing of knowledge in an attempt to understand the world around us. Because God cannot be tested, proven, disproven, or studied, it does not fall into the purview of science anymore than the notion of a soul. That fact does not denote its lack of existence, however. It simply means that it does not fit into the realm of science.


The notion of "atheistic science" has only become really popular lately, but science is not inherently atheistic or theistic; it's simply a method to gathering, testing, and expanding knowledge. The fact is, however, that the pursuit of science and the knowledge it gives us, and the notion of religious belief, are actually quite mutually exclusive areas of thought. They do not intersect; one deals with the material world, one deals expressly with things beyond it. Apples and oranges. Belief in God does not necessitate a disbelief in scientific discovery. Science in and of itself does nothing to debunk God. God has no place in science, and what I mean by that is that science does nothing, and has no reason to, question God, God's existence, or his/her/its nonexistence. Science merely studies, measures, and tries to explain the material universe around us.

A scientists can believe whatever he likes; it has no impact on his pursuit of scientific discovery because there's nothing to discover that will expressly disprove his belief in a higher being. God and science go to different coffee shops.

Ergo, a person can "insist" that their god exists if they choose to believe that; science does absolutely nothing to hinder or aid in the belief of a god. What is immature, is purposefully disregarding what science actually does and then insisting that god does not exist on the basis of a notion that is not designed nor equipped to grapple the concept of "god" in the first place. That is a subversion of science's purpose and nature, and a poor one at that.

Point being, science and religion are mutually exclusive areas of thought. They don't have any overlap; one is the study of the material world, the other is focused on the notion of things expressly beyond the material. People who tout science as "debunking" religion are often as close-minded and dogmatic as the theists they claim to be set against. Two sides of the same coin.

I, personally, don't care much either way as to whether or not a god exists. Either it does or it doesn't, it's not any real concern of mine. I support science and the pursuit of knowledge, and I understand what science is and isn't. It is a tool through which we can expand our understanding of the cosmos. It is not a tool designed to try and answer questions about God. That is for theologists and philosophers. Scientists are concerned with information that can be readily measured, tested, and experimented with. Applying science to the question of God is about as useful as a pair of fake tits on a hog; people are better off using science for its actual purpose, being the expansion of our knowledge regarding the material universe.

Science and God

Science is the understanding of the world and the universe around it, and any other possible plane of existence around that. So, if a theory proposes that a god does exist, and it's a strong theory, then a theory on god will exist. If solid evidence of god becomes apparent, then that theory becomes a de facto theory (or in laymen's terms, a fact).

However, since there is no solid evidence of a god, nor is there any good holding theory of a god. It has led us to conclude that the existence of a god is unlikely for what evidence we have now, and most scientists speculate that their isn't a god on the logic that they don't speculate there's a teapot spinning around the belt of the planet neptune.

In addition to that, with our growing understanding of the universe so far, it's becoming more and more apparent that even if a god exists, a god was not needed for the creation of the universe, or the creation of life, as the questions and the uncertainties around those areas are rapidly shrinking. Quantum foam theory, String theory, Particle theory, all of these theories each in their own way explain a reasonable case on how the universe is created, and with the discovery of the higgs boson, quantum foam theory seems to have taken the lead over the previously leading theory that was string theory. With particle theory kinda being a bit herpy derpy after Einstein's time (he was heavily convicted on a newtonian base universe, which we know is no longer the case, and that macroscopic laws are built upon base quantum laws).

On the other hand, if a god does exist, it would become a part of science. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. If god exists, he/she/it would be a fact in science. Science measures everything it possibly can, it has never stated at any point that it would not explore and measure and try to find an understanding of the spiritual world, all it's said is that as far as evidence shows, any spiritual or supernatural element in the universe is as likely to exist as much as a god exists.

Which is not likely.

Where does that leave philosophy?

For your views on theologians and philosophers, science actually originates from philosophy, what was called natural world philosophy (Isaac Newton being one of them), is now called physics, and biology, and chemistry, the three major holds of all fields of science today. For a while, philosophy and science lived hand in hand, and philosophers would speculate using logic certain things, that science would then be able to answer and rectify.

However, nowadays, with our understanding so large, and our methodologies so evolved, philosophy can since been left in the dust, with the only good philosophers who can hold relevance or contribution towards understanding where we are, to actually have some very good scientific understanding of the world itself. So they can speculate.

The majority of philosophers however, talk about abstract ideas like morals, or emotions, and try to come up with ways in order to live our lives, and to try and answer these abstract ideas. Now, the methodology is either through pure logic, which as we know does not comply with applied logic of the universe, and therefore is all really wishy washy, and kinda redundant. The other is to use life experience, and to really sift through trial and error of what is and isn't true on how to live your life, which is fine. The other is to just kinda say "hey that sounds nice" and go with it because your emotions say it's nice, which is retarded.

You often here things like "oh he's a great philosopher, such wisdom, such emotion, so moving", which is meant to bring some weight to the understanding of who we are etc etc. Which, on a completely physical scale, is nothing more than relevant fiction.

So, as far as understanding how the world works on a "spiritual level", it's just irrelevant, and of no worth whatsoever.

On a "how to live your life" level however, there is obviously some great words of wisdom, which is usually a combination of "hmmm that feels nice" to give yourself a positive and enthusiastic outlook, and on experience because experience gives good insight to what has and hasn't worked for us on an individual/societal level. The purely logic methodology doesn't apply to the emotional aspect of our lives, unlike in applied logic (or common sense as it's usually called), therefore the pure logic side, something you usually see theologians like william lane craig use to try and prove god with, is redundant in both aspects of philosophy for any use. (An example of his logic is, "From the universe we live in, that will forever expand, and die of a heat death, there would be no hope. However, with a god, there is hope. I then place it to the atheists to prove that we feel no hope, in order to disprove god. If we do feel hope however, then therefore there is a god". It doesn't hold any valid application in life).

So, that leaves philosophy only really asking about the personal and societal questions, some of them redundant (for instance a purpose in life, which only came about when it was commonly agreed that a god had made us a for purpose, with that kinda going out the window, we don't really need to even consider there is a divine or common purpose for us past 'we're here to continue trying to be here'), and some of them valid (how do we live together, can we sustain our lives, how to live a happy life, how to feel and be successful, how to love one another, or how to hate one another etc etc).

So, basic summary.

Philosophy birthed science, science was a part of philosophy, however science adopted a new methodology of empirical measurement and theory based on evidence. While philosophy stuck to emotion, pure logic, and experience. Science has since taken the lead as it was more effective, and it grew more and more effective in a means to understanding the world. While philosophy has slowly lost weight on those subjects.

Now, philosophy only really holds weight on questions involving us on a personal, emotional and societal level. And those who are philosophers of science, also should require a very good understanding of the world, and therefore should at least be a scientist of some sort, on the side of being a philosopher, otherwise they're not fit to help out.

Also, to add - if science starts gaining new ground on questions involving us on a personal, emotional, and societal level, which is kinda already has loosely, then philosophy should take a hint and back off a bit. As they've only really proven to be a more earlier form of answering questions before becoming developed into a science anyway.

As for philosophy on the spiritual level and all that. (i.e. theologians), let me just respond to that with an ending thought.

I wonder what colour the tea pot around Neptune is...

[Gekidami]

If you're going to go down the route of what science can and cant prove then its only fair you actually take into account what science does know right now. And what this is goes against the current day religious texts, it debunks them. So does A God exist? Maybe. Is it the God(s) of the Bible, Koran, Sanskrit and whatever else? Nope.

[Falcon720]

No, I don't think it has anything to do with maturity.
Now, I don't have any problems with religions, but I think it is wrong to force people to follow traditions that we really should get rid of (i.e. church). This doesn't mean that religion is wrong, or that cults are right. It only means that, if someone chooses to believe in God, why not what it ACTUALLY says in the Bible, like Jesus storming the temple in near anger. Come on, people, the temple he stormed is almost exactly like CHURCH!

Getting back to the point, aetheism doesn't mean anything on someone's maturity. One group of people I point to as an example of our modern beliefs are scientists. Yes, there are strange people in the background, but that background is made up mostly of people trying to figure out our world for what it really is. Sadly, though, they are shunned by the mainstream ones, who are so set in their hard-headed ways that any ideas conflicting with theirs is cast off immediately as completely ludicrous. So no, aetheism is not a sign of maturity, rather the true sign of maturity is open-mindedness towards new ideas and cincepts not traditional.

For the record, I believe in God, Jesus, and the ancient holy scriptures. I do not go to church, though. It can not possibly be in God's will to go to any certain house to pray to Him. We should realize that he is always with us. Well, that's my belief, anyway.

[tech]

Every Atheist I have ever met has just bitched about how religion is wrong and rots your brain etc. I would rather listen to a Right wing Christian complain about gays, then a 16 year old 'edgy' teenager complain about how superior he is to everyone.

HURRDURR I'm atheist debate me.
I'm agnostic btw.

[Jani Warheart]

Haven't been on this site in years. Once again, I found myself unable to sleep and in my complete and utter boredom... popped on here to read things. Honestly, a lot of this thread is just entire dribble-bullshit. Firstly, all this nonsense that everything is either you believe in deities, you cast out any sense of belief, or one form of spirituality. There is no one form of spirituality. Not that I really am surprised most people don't know of the numerous types out there.

Don't really feel like getting into the details of my belief which does sum up into spirituality accept to say, guess what, I don't believe in any higher power, supreme being, or other such things. Karma? Bullshit. All of it I call bullshit on. Curious how I can have spirituality then? Look up pantheism if you want to know.

That said though. I hate religion. Funny thing about this though? I have several religions friends. Hell, I have a gay-christian friend. Also, any idea that atheism is a mark of maturity is ridiculous.

[MorningWood]

Atheism nowadays is something for whiny teens who think they are edgy because they can debunk some deity (because it hasn`t been done before!) Real badasses are daoist anyway.

[Scribz]

Atheism nowadays is something for whiny teens who think they are edgy because they can debunk some deity (because it hasn`t been done before!) Real badasses are daoist anyway.

okay then.

[Alkeni Synair]

Atheism nowadays is something for whiny teens who think they are edgy because they can debunk some deity (because it hasn`t been done before!) Real badasses are daoist anyway.

I was an athiest when I was 11 b/c god made no sense.

[Tasuke]

I was an athiest when I was 11 b/c god made no sense.

People teaching lies twisted from what they profess to believe does that. A mess of confusion with no light in swallowing darkness.

Behold the Baskin Robbin's of Churchianity and laugh at their utter foolishness and contradictions as they teach what they have no right to teach! Marvel as they dodge the important questions and attempt to soothe the hearts of the suffering with empty, flowery speech of no benefit at all!

And yet they sing, deluded in their drunken conceit that they represent the Truth as they plainly go opposite and pervert it!

My two cents ends with an answer to the inquiry of this thread. As one matures and delves into the realm of God, over and again they must struggle through the clearly illogical and plain nonsense spouted by interpretations of preachers and "Christians" that recite the very same things told to them without a grain of proof regarding what God says.

When the heat turns up, those strands of your worthless straw man will burn and reveal the tragedy of your falseness.

Know this, "instructors" and "servants" of the Eternal: you only feed a tradition of godlessness rather than strengthening confidence through facts.

Perhaps it was better to hold my tongue, or perhaps this belonged as thread alone, but wrath toward people talking in complete ignorance as if they know anything is a folly only a fool would rush to commit, and yet it seems such offenders are never in small amount, are they?