The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[Peter]

Well the question whether God exists or not is immaterial.Personally I believe in God.However what one needs to understand is that it is a person`s actions and not the devotion he shows to God that will help him in life. If I throw away my books and start praying to God asking him for good gpa then I will get little success. Instead a boy who is an atheist but a studious student will get better marks than me. (Like the bengali saying mukhe naam hathe kaam)
Then if there is no need for God to achieve success why do people like me believe in him.Simply because God serves as an X factor to me during my struggle. When I pray to him I get added confidence. Also the fear that God is watching over me makes me become a little more careful in life.

However all said and done people should follow God`s words about being kind,peaceful and charitable rather than spending lakhs of rupees on pujas,aratis and donations.Just today when I was going to JU I saw a man throwing money to a temple but not giving even one paisa to the widowed beggar crying and dying on the street nearby. That is the real hypocrisy. Hinduism tells us that god is in man and by loving men we love god. However it seems people have forgotten that basic knowledge about our religion (though they claim they know the entire shastras). Some people are more interested in organizing grand Durga pujas in the para and finding out the exact birth date of Sri Rama than in helping the poor or taking care of their old parents(I personally know of real life examples in our community). I would say in God`s eyes the people who are atheists but still help the poor,take care of their parents are more dear to Him than people who hold such pujas or chant God`s name throughout the day.

 

[Peter]

. I do not think atheism or theism are much responsible for things like advancement .

I have to agree with that partially.
However I would like to point out that the Enlightenment in Europe or the Renaissance there started by questioning of the very existence of God. In fact Galileo one of the forefathers of the modern science was punished by the Church as he had violated the religious belief that the earth was at the center of the universe.

 

[jackprince]

I have to agree with that partially.
However I would like to point out that the Enlightenment in Europe or the Renaissance there started by questioning of the very existence of God. In fact Galileo one of the forefathers of the modern science was punished by the Church as he had violated the religious belief that the earth was at the center of the universe.

The European enlightenment indeed had its root in agnosticism, however the subject religion was Christianity - an Abrahmic religion which/or rather the morons who usurped the pedestal of that religion - vehemently refused to accept anything that was something other than written in one of their testaments. Most other religion which did not have their roots in Abrahamic religion, does not encroach in corporeal life or advancement of human condition (except volunteer asceticism) like Hinduism or Budhism or Confucianism or Taoismor or Zoroastrianism or other pagan religions. Most of the established religion dealt more with spiritualism than commanding day to day life like Abrahamic religion.

Particularly, if you see ancient Indian history the most of study/invention were done by the Brahmin class who cannot be claimed to be Agnostic.

 

[Razor]

... the earth was at the center of the universe.

Can you define "center of the Universe" ? What qualifies as center ?

 

[Dovah]

Can you define "center of the Universe" ? What qualifies as center ?

If we assume BBT to be true, the Universe can not have a center, since space itself came into existence after the initial explosion and has been expanding ever since.

 

[Razor]

If we assume BBT to be true, the Universe can not have a center, since space itself came into existence after the initial explosion and has been expanding ever since.

Well, if BBT==1, then there HAS to be a center from which everything moves away, right ?
But scientist observed that the cosmic background radiation is the same everywhere, in every direction so they assume something called the cosmological principle, which states that the universe is the same where ever you observe it from. This in turn implies that there cannot be a center.
But this also implies that the universe is infinite.

 

[Dovah]

Well, if BBT==1, then there HAS to be a center from which everything moves away, right ?
But scientist observed that the cosmic background radiation is the same everywhere, in every direction so they assume something called the cosmological principle, which states that the universe is the same where ever you observe it from. This in turn implies that there cannot be a center.
But this also implies that the universe is infinite.

Regarding the first point. Center is a property of shape. In this case space. A 1D, 2D or even a 3D object can have a center. But a 0D object which is in itself a point will not have any center. BBT assumes that the universe expanded from a 0D singularity and has been expanding ever since, so it can not have a centre since no dimension of space existed in the first place.

But, isn't the Einstein's Cosmological constant theory of a static universe disproved since Universe is actually expanding? Drak energy and such.

 

[Razor]

Regarding the first point. Center is a property of shape. In this case space. A 1D, 2D or even a 3D object can have a center. But a 0D object which is in itself a point will not have any center. BBT assumes that the universe expanded from a 0D singularity and has been expanding ever since, so it can not have a centre since no dimension of space existed in the first place.

I kinda get what you are saying.

But, isn't the Einstein's Cosmological constant theory of a static universe disproved since Universe is actually expanding? Drak energy and such.

I think you are talking about something else. I was talking about the cosmic background radiation and how it is supposedly constant in all directions.

 

[Pratap]

The European enlightenment indeed had its root in agnosticism, however the subject religion was Christianity - an Abrahmic religion which/or rather the morons who usurped the pedestal of that religion - vehemently refused to accept anything that was something other than written in one of their testaments. Most other religion which did not have their roots in Abrahamic religion, does not encroach in corporeal life or advancement of human condition (except volunteer asceticism) like Hinduism or Budhism or Confucianism or Taoismor or Zoroastrianism or other pagan religions. Most of the established religion dealt more with spiritualism than commanding day to day life like Abrahamic religion.

Particularly, if you see ancient Indian history the most of study/invention were done by the Brahmin class who cannot be claimed to be Agnostic.

True, most of inventions were done by Hindu brahmins not buddhist brahmins . It should be noted that 99 percent of Buddhist philosophers were either Brahmins or kshatriyas so I used term Hindu brahmin.

 

[Peter]

Can you define "center of the Universe" ? What qualifies as center ?

Well the Roman Catholic Church of 16th century could explain it to you what it considered as the center of the universe?LOL

 

[Razor]

Well the Roman Catholic Church of 16th century could explain it to you what it considered as the center of the universe?LOL

I asked a serious question, assuming I'll get a sensible reply from you, my bad.

 

[Peter]

I asked a serious question, assuming I'll get a sensible reply from you, my bad.

Really I do not think anybody knows what is at the center of the universe or if there is a center. Well the religious texts sometimes mentioned holy lands as center of the universe. Personally I do not have any knowledge about the center of the universe.This might help.

History of the Center of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The nonexistence of a center of the universe
The Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.Hermann Bondi named the principle after Copernicus in the mid-20th century, although the principle itself dates back to the 16th-17th century paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic system, which placed Earth at the center of the Universe.

The cosmological principle is an extension of the Copernican principle which states that the universe is homogeneous (the same observational evidence is available to observers at different locations in the universe) and isotropic (the same observational evidence is available by looking in any direction in the universe). A homogeneous, isotropic universe does not have a center.

 

[Glint]

Can you define "center of the Universe" ? What qualifies as center ?

In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism or the Ptolemaic system), is the superseded theory that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it. This geocentric model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, most Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled the Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy.

Nicolaus Copernicus major theory of a heliocentric model was published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), in the year of his death, 1543, though he had formulated the theory several decades earlier.

Johannes Kepler published his first two laws about planetary motion in 1609, having found them by analyzing the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe. Kepler's third law was published in 1619.The first law was "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci."

On 7 January 1610 Galileo used his telescope, with optics superior to what had been available before. He described "three fixed stars, totally invisible by their smallness", all close to Jupiter, and lying on a straight line through it. Observations on subsequent nights showed that the positions of these "stars" relative to Jupiter were changing in a way that would have been inexplicable if they had really been fixed stars. On 10 January Galileo noted that one of them had disappeared, an observation which he attributed to its being hidden behind Jupiter. Within a few days he concluded that they were orbiting Jupiter. Galileo stated that he had reached this conclusion on 11 January. He had discovered three of Jupiter's four largest satellites (moons). He discovered the fourth on 13 January.

His observations of the satellites of Jupiter created a revolution in astronomy: a planet with smaller planets orbiting it did not conform to the principles of Aristotelian Cosmology, which held that all heavenly bodies should circle the Earth, and many astronomers and philosophers initially refused to believe that Galileo could have discovered such a thing.

Although i think this is a stupid theory because the Universe is too big to calculate the theory exactly but in a logical way, earth is the center of the universe for us because its the only planet inhabited by us(humans) to start the measuring distance from.

 

[Dovah]

Although i think this is a stupid theory because the Universe is too big to calculate the theory exactly but in a logical way, earth is the center of the universe for us because its the only planet inhabited by us(humans) to start the measuring distance from.

That is several levels of incorrect dude.

 

[Glint]

That is several levels of incorrect dude.

Um, could be, I'm not a genius in "universe" stuff.

 

[Ashutosh Lokhande]

I believe in karma and dharma (code of conduct) dunno if that makes me a religious person or not.

 

[sydsnyper]

Just wondering, what do our resident athiests & agnostics (I am somewhere between that and devotional), think of zen, or have read the Ashtavakra Gita or the Avadhuta Gita.

 

[archie]

One cannot Judge something while being inside of it.. We being the creation cannot see the entirity of the creator.. Its like a machine seeing the designer what do you thing the machine can percieve of its designer??

The Question is not if God Exists.. but of what do you define by God.. if you mean the power of Creation.. yes the power exists.. if you mean by a person.. it may not be... Humas are limited by sense of perception. There is a possibility there are more percived ways of the same earth and the universe.. if any athiest can accept that then that in effect is a belif in God.

The question would be what do people think "god" is?

 

[Nicky G]

I haven't read through this thread but I hope people aren't confusing the terms. Atheism is about belief, while agnosticism is about knowledge.

My problem with atheists in general, particular the internet celebs who are otherwise intelligent people is that when they demand proof, their scope of of what entails an acceptable proof is severely limited, particularly by materialism that stems out of late 19th century Austria in a large part.

The other problem is that science and consequently proof is limited by the current level of knowledge, that does not limit reality. Before microscopes were invented for instance and we had direct evidence for microbes, these beings still existed. Thus, its supremely arrogant to claim that just because our current level of technology does not or cannot detect something, it does not exist.

Moving onto simple philosophy, as I am sure has been brought up, our minds themselves are limited. We can only perceive and comprehend in a narrow spectrum of slow moving, macro level objects upto a certain size. We cannot perceive things quantum-mechanically for instance, thus we had to invent fancy mathematics to give a language to what would be non-intuitive to our brains.

This is a topic one can speak a lot about, to cut it short, I do not claim any knowledge beyond what's acceptable, however, I consider it silly to presume that all that's there's to this universe/multi-verse is what our science tells us.

As for belief, I was raised in a religious family, was never so. In college I'd say I became close to atheist. From then on as I have learnt more and explored the world and ancient writings and been exposed to thoughts and wisdom contained in them in conjunction to the severe limitations of materialistic science, I have come to believe that there is a lot out there beyond our understanding and there is some supreme or fundamental energy that permeates all. Whether that is God or not is a matter of personal belief.

 

[sydsnyper]

I would like to counter that example....

The atheists I have seen, mostly on youtube, ask for intelligible proof of the the supernatural. They are not the types that will simply discard a belief or a theory because it is based on the supernatural, rather, they inspect such phenomenon and look for rudimentary and explainable & repeatable causes for the phenomenon.

Continuing your example of microbes, lets say someone in the dark ages had suggested the existence of little beings not visible to the eye causing illnesses. A non-believer would ask for evidence to prove the claim. Now, the interesting thing is that the guy who proposes this theory himself/herself does not have proof of existence, at that point in time, the claim is based on speculation and a general theory. Hence, technically the non-believer would have been right even in that context.

Now, you may want to claim that ultimately the believer turned out to be right, and correctly so; but given the context of the theory being raised, it was merely speculation.

Sometime in the future, hopefully in my lifetime , we may discover extra dimensions and beings in those dimensions who may be believed to be gods, and the theists would be proved right. However, in the current context they are not. Also, while almost all theists have so called proof-beyond-doubt of their beliefs being the only truth, an atheist would honestly answer they they do not know what the ultimate truth is and offer to try and find it in the most rigorous way possible.

IMHO - any belief that is based on speculation, is trouble, no matter if it turns out to be the truth in the end.

I haven't read through this thread but I hope people aren't confusing the terms. Atheism is about belief, while agnosticism is about knowledge.

My problem with atheists in general, particular the internet celebs who are otherwise intelligent people is that when they demand proof, their scope of of what entails an acceptable proof is severely limited, particularly by materialism that stems out of late 19th century Austria in a large part.

The other problem is that science and consequently proof is limited by the current level of knowledge, that does not limit reality. Before microscopes were invented for instance and we had direct evidence for microbes, these beings still existed. Thus, its supremely arrogant to claim that just because our current level of technology does not or cannot detect something, it does not exist.

Moving onto simple philosophy, as I am sure has been brought up, our minds themselves are limited. We can only perceive and comprehend in a narrow spectrum of slow moving, macro level objects upto a certain size. We cannot perceive things quantum-mechanically for instance, thus we had to invent fancy mathematics to give a language to what would be non-intuitive to our brains.

This is a topic one can speak a lot about, to cut it short, I do not claim any knowledge beyond what's acceptable, however, I consider it silly to presume that all that's there's to this universe/multi-verse is what our science tells us.

As for belief, I was raised in a religious family, was never so. In college I'd say I became close to atheist. From then on as I have learnt more and explored the world and ancient writings and been exposed to thoughts and wisdom contained in them in conjunction to the severe limitations of materialistic science, I have come to believe that there is a lot out there beyond our understanding and there is some supreme or fundamental energy that permeates all. Whether that is God or not is a matter of personal belief.