Thread: Just a question for the atheists

Is there even a 'why'? Think about that first...

Why should everything have a purpose? What evidence, what hints do we even have that this life, this universe has a purpose?

I think it is just human thinking to want to have a purpose, a deeper meaning for everything. We are so far evolved that we can question stuff... The only thing is that we see everything from a human perspective.
When we see a dog wagging it's tail, it isn't hard to imagine him saying something like 'Oh... it's my boss, hey pal!' Just because he looks so happy. We see the dog speaking, we momentarily see the dog from a human standpoint, simply because the only thinking we know is that of humans... Have you ever thought like a dog?

It's the same with seeing life and the universe. When we do something or make something, we do it with a purpose, with a meaning, and therefore we anthropomorphise nature, life, the world itself, because we can only think in terms of human thinking.
I can remember someone saying he felt sad for pluto because he was degraded to a dwarf-planet... How's that for personifying? It's a rock made of ice!

So yeah... Instead of asking whether science can explain why things are (which implies a creator, by the way... The only thing that can give a purpose to something is a creator... else it just happened, and there can only be a how...), you should ask whether there even is a why...

If you mean the "why" of existence itself, no. That belongs to the realm of philosophy, not science.

Originally Posted by Korittke

If you mean the "why" of existence itself, no. That belongs to the realm of philosophy, not science.

As far as I'm concerned for science to replace religion, a completed science should answer everything, without ever needing the word philosophy.

If science will ever explain everything, eventually our laws of physics/logic, ect. will break down and we will never need a philosopical why. We won't need a why for the universes origin, because we "know", this is assuming we have completed science. I'm just curious if atheist think we can achieve this.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

As far as I'm concerned for science to replace religion, a completed science should answer everything, without ever needing the word philosophy.

If science will ever explain everything, eventually our laws of physics/logic, ect. will break down and we will never need a philosopical why. We won't need a why for the universes origin, because we "know", this is assuming we have completed science. I'm just curious if atheist think we can achieve this.

No.

1. Not every question can be answered by science. This is why we have philosophy.

2. Philosophy and science are complementary. The task of philosophy is not to solve problems, but to identify and clarify them. There is no science without the philosophy of science.

Originally Posted by Korittke

No.

1. Not every question can be answered by science. This is why we have philosophy.

I realize this, I'm just saying it's a possibility that may happen eventually in some distant future when we become "gods" ourselves. Science should cover everything to be "true science". Questions regarding human pondering should be answered with the breakdown of logic/physics. It's hard to grasp as a possibility now only because it's so far into the future.

For example: Is it better to kill 1 person to save 2? Right now it can be argued with moral standards. With the breakdown, we can bypass this question because its too general. We should know the decendents of all the people and who further contributes a cause to humanity and who upsets it. On and on this breakdown will continue, what cause is better? ect. With unlimited sight, cold logic can be applied to anything. Morals would cease to be only as a human condition.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

I realize this, I'm just saying it's a possibility that may happen eventually in some distant future when we become "gods" ourselves. Science should cover everything to be "true science". Questions regarding human pondering should be answered with the breakdown of logic/physics. It's hard to grasp as a possibility now only because it's so far into the future.

For example: Is it better to kill 1 person to save 2? Right now it can be argued with moral standards. With the breakdown, we can bypass this question because its too general. We should know the decendents of all the people and who further contributes a cause to humanity and who upsets it. On and on this breakdown will continue, what cause is better? ect. With unlimited sight, cold logic can be applied to anything. Morals would cease to be only as a human condition.

No. There are questions which cannot be answered scientifically, and moral ones belong to that group. So long as humans are alive, they are subjects. And so long as they are subjects they ask questions that cannot be answered scientifically.

Originally Posted by Korittke

No. There are questions which cannot be answered scientifically, and moral ones belong to that group. So long as humans are alive, they are subjects. And so long as they are subjects they ask questions that cannot be answered scientifically.

Fair enough, but we have different views on the matter. I will put more thought into this, even if it's foolish.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

As far as I'm concerned for science to replace religion, a completed science should answer everything, without ever needing the word philosophy.

So, until people could explain lightning, they should have kept assuming it was caused by the god of thunder?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, until people could explain lightning, they should have kept assuming it was caused by the god of thunder?

When I mean replace, I mean erradicating religion until it is no more. As of now they both exist. This is because science isn't "complete"-following the atheist view of course. Clear?

What's with all these questions dealing with semantics? Some people just want to discredit others, does it make them feel beter? It's obvious when you brought up god of thunder instead of God. Polytheism isn't as common as monotheism, so I will assume this was spite. Just forget it...

Anyways back on topic.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

When I mean replace, I mean erradicating religion until it is no more. As of now they both exist. This is because science isn't "complete"-following the atheist view of course. Clear?

If you are going to talk about a subject like this, you can't be so sensitive. My question completely related to what you are talking about. I used "god of thunder" because people did used to believe in such a god and I assume you do not. That is why I thought it made a good analogy.

My point is that not being able to explain something does not intellectually justify making up something unsupported as an explanation. That is what the god of thunder was, and it is what I think the God of modern Western religion is now.

So, you don't think people should have assumed the existence of the god of thunder before science explained lightning? If not, then why do you think people today should assume the god of the universe just because we don't have a full explanation of its source? I am not giving an opinion on going out and eradicating religion. That is a separate issue. I am asking why people should make such an assumption in the first place.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, you don't think people should have assumed the existence of the god of thunder before science explained lightning? If not, then why do you think people today should assume the god of the universe just because we don't have a full explanation of its source? I am not giving an opinion on going out and eradicating religion. That is a separate issue. I am asking why people should make such an assumption in the first place.

Religion at its heart is something designed to gives us answers for questions we don't have. I believe right now we lack the understanding to completely rule out God and embrace atheism(vice versa).

Sure science has helped us understand the world's lightning, sunsets, ect, but to explain the thing we call "everything" is far grander. I think Atheist like us all don't truly realize how small we are in the vastness of space. For all we know our universe could be the equivalent of a drop of water running down the side of a cave in a much larger world. Of course to us this would be our expanding universe, filled with particles we call planets. Of course nothing are alike-bear with me.

I choose to believe in Christianity because it gives me outlines of answers(call them false, whatever) that I don't believe will ever be explained. Other people believe in God(s) for many reasons, that's them. Lack of an introduction to science/acceptence isn't always what keeps people from "real world realities"

-Back to the thread's purpose. It wasn't my intention to have to explain why people believe in God. I just wanted to know whether or not an atheist believe science will become "true" science thus eliminating religion, and philosophy(yes I'm still stuck on this)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you are going to talk about a subject like this, you can't be so sensitive. My question completely related to what you are talking about. I used "god of thunder" because people did used to believe in such a god and I assume you do not. That is why I thought it made a good analogy.

My point is that not being able to explain something does not intellectually justify making up something unsupported as an explanation. That is what the god of thunder was, and it is what I think the God of modern Western religion is now.

So, you don't think people should have assumed the existence of the god of thunder before science explained lightning? If not, then why do you think people today should assume the god of the universe just because we don't have a full explanation of its source? I am not giving an opinion on going out and eradicating religion. That is a separate issue. I am asking why people should make such an assumption in the first place.

Have you ever heard of super string theory? Assuming that you have, you might also know that there is no supporting physical evidence for its validity. Those that use the physical sciences to seek knowledge fabricate explanations too. They just have more information to base their assumptions on. The only advantage that the realm of science holds over most of the realm of religion is its store of information with which to base its guesses on.

The only reason why few if any people believe in a god of thunder now is because we have ways of gathering information that surpass the methods of the past. Do you honestly think that you would be the one to claim that tiny particles called electrons were jumping between other particles called atoms because there was a build up in the clouds and a defficiency in the ground when you had absolutely no evidence of the fact and had no way to check?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Believe what you want to believe, just don't mistake Science as being a system of belief...

Science may not be a 'system of belief' but it incorporates a very specific language that does not allow for speaking about certain types of beliefs. In this way, science excludes the possible validity of some ideas.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

When I mean replace, I mean erradicating religion until it is no more. As of now they both exist. This is because science isn't "complete"-following the atheist view of course. Clear?

I don't think that's true. Religion and science are two VERY VERY different things, meant to explain very different things. Religion is trying to break into the realm of science, when it's really not where it belongs at all. Religion is one of the models people have. It models the question "why are we here", where the "why" is a conscious thing, because their minds can't process the lack of there being a conscious "why". Science explains the "how", based on observation and evidence.

The two can and should coexist. What needs to be eradicated is the intolerance that comes out of all of it.

Originally Posted by Replicon

The two can and should coexist. What needs to be eradicated is the intolerance that comes out of all of it.

I agree, I'm just going from what I think is an extreme atheist point of view. Science and religion is like gold, you can't have it too pure or with to many impurites. It will either be too soft or wouldn't be gold anymore.

NeoSioType is essentially saying or asking if atheist plan to have a science that answers everything. Any person knows that it is important to understand how things function in order to live in a more sophisticated way. An atheist that says why is not an important question. Probably would fit in better amongst those living more fanatically. Like junkies for example. Who do not ask why they do it as they need their next fix.

A genuine atheist will ask why. And on proper and decent reflection. It would soon become a label of intriguing implications.

We won't need a why for the universes origin, because we "know"

There is many like that already. Seismosaur tells us why is explained. As long as you can fly like superman and move like catwoman. I will believe you. Soon as he fails at something I will call him on it. When denile becomes obvious we move on.

Others like CryoDragoon suggest we should ask why we ask why. Does a scientist ask for evidence of the evidence? Does a religion ask for a the beliefs of the beliefs? Sometimes it is appropriate....In this case CryoDragoon seems to be accepting that we don't need to ask why, and if we do, we need to ask why that is.

Next others like Universal Mind may think we are nothing. Yet why is he calling himself 'Universal mind'? That surely is not 'nothing' but everything. Despite this inconsistency he does admit he doesn't know everything. This makes him more credible and realistic than Seismosaur or Cryodragoon. Who suggest that it is not even productive to seek answers.

NeoSioType also comments religion serves the purpose of giving answers that we can't find with science. While it does fill some void, science is not compatible with a religious approach. Religion is faith based. Science is evidence based.

Korittke makes a very intelligent comment. He states why philosophy and science rely on each other to be whole. Someone who thinks about this heavily will realize. Science and philosophy progress through a mutual co-existent co-operation that operates under a functional mind.


Next NeoSioType is concerned with morals being a temporary condition brought out of ignorance. That when answers are known. Morals will cease to be a question of relevance. Imagination will always drive morals forward and improve them through the use of the question why and a striving for better things. But never completely eliminate the possibility of further progress. The very nature of unlimited logic allows for morals to co-exist as something valuable. Otherwise it would not be unlimited logic.

Overall atheist views on what is possible probably vary and have as much connection to their atheism as chalk and cheese.

NeoSioType continues to press the idea of eradicating the need for religion through unlimited knowledge. In theory he would do well to listen to people like CryoDragoon here who tells us to ask why we are asking why we need something. Religion exist as an idea. Ideas are bullet proof. Yet if you feel a need to not need religion. This is also a bulletproof idea. Unlimited knowledge is not for or against ideas but compliments and back them up with evidence.

Korittke points out that questions will never end. While NeoSioType insists what if they could end. Keep in mind both are bullet proof ideas.

Here is where universal mind asks the question. Why believe and have faith in things which you have no explanation for. Why substitute a god of lightning or thunder for the science of lightning? We can see that imagination aids humans ability to move forward. No matter if we worship a god of lightning or visualize our idea of what causes lightning and put it into practice ourself. We cannot escape the fact that to move forward and continue in our life. Visualization through our imagination is essential to progress our possibilities through our energy we gain a clear focus of direction with confidence. Which then have the power to effect those things in motion around us.

Should we look down on a so called primitive person who devotes themself to Zeus? Or should we respect the power of their own faith to drive them forward in life with such confidence as having the power of lightning behind them with the support of Zeus? After all. Ideas are bullet proof. This is certainly a pretty powerful idea if they truly believe in it. Who are we to say things are impossible? Do we have unlimited knowledge? Would unlimited knowledge make things impossible or would they make everything possible.

We can talk about it till the cows come home. The best thing to do is experiment. Whoever is willing to experiment with an open mind will gain my trust

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, until people could explain lightning, they should have kept assuming it was caused by the god of thunder?

The bible was written at a time when no person could explain lightning, and yet it did not say God was doing it. Why didn't the bible try to explain things like lightning by linking them all to God?

Originally Posted by Arthurium

The bible was written at a time when no person could explain lightning, and yet it did not say God was doing it. Why didn't the bible try to explain things like lightning by linking them all to God?

Because Yahweh is not the god of thunder.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Because Yahweh is not the god of thunder.

By Zeus! Or Thor... which one :/ damn, all these deities to choose from...

Originally Posted by Korittke

Because Yahweh is not the god of thunder.

No I mean if the bible was a bunch of crap wouldn't it try to explain things such as thunder in ways similar to that of the logic of that time period. As an example I was stating that it didn't explain thunder as being an act of God.

Follow?