Apr 4, 2009

Great atheistic accomplishments


Recently i was challenged by a friend and fellow blogger, to take a different approach to my debate tactics. Instead of pointing out problems with religion and diminishing its value to mankind, (which is not what i was doing anyway) why not write a piece pointing out all the wonderful things atheism has given humans. I suspect that this fellows request was based on the assumption that i would be hard pressed to find accomplishment that could be directly attributed to atheism. Though he is quite wrong, i feel his comments represent a common misconception about atheism. A misconception that atheist don't carry or possibly even recognize. Maybe this is why atheist don't feel a need to write about this topic very often. The religious or perhaps even agnostics however, do not see what atheism has contributed to society, or why we so proudly promote atheism. I shall do my part to put this concept to rest, and explain why proving atheism's importance is not always the focus of our atheist vs. theist debates, as it is truly common sense, yet unrecognized by mainstream society.


Before i offer some examples of atheistic accomplishments. I must try to define what an atheist is and what an atheistic accomplishment would be.


Atheist- One who believes that there are no supernatural entities.


An atheist looks at all things, as having natural causes. Now having said that, it is possible that many people who believe in a god may still take an atheistic approach to life. Will god help me win the game? Or will practice, hard work and dedication help me? If you feel that practice is more important, then you've taken an atheistic approach to winning. Will god maintain my health? Or will proven things like diet and exercise? If you feel the latter is the correct way, then you've taken an atheistic approach to health. To summarize: An atheistic accomplishment is an accomplishment that can be directly attributed to not-believing in supernatural entities. Now all of a sudden atheism doesn't seem so uncommon does it?

Lets start with all of science: I would like to remind you that everything unexplained was once attributed to God. Learning that hurricanes, volcanoes and earthquakes are not the result of Gods wrath and truly have natural causes, has allowed humans to make very accurate predictions about the "how and when", which I'm sure has chalked up a few saved lives. Then of course there is all of modern medicine. I would like to remind you again, that for thousands of years demons or angry gods made people ill, not viruses. Prior to medicine only religious rituals could aid the ill.

I'm sure you could argue "hey many of the people who made these scientific discoveries were religious." True, yet despite whatever beliefs they held, they took an atheistic approach for solving problems, or rather a scientific approach that does accept the supernatural as a plausible hypothesis. I feel its safe to say that all breakthrough advances in science would be left in the dust if mankind had persist down the religious path and clung to theistic hypothesis to explain our world. In matters of science, atheistic accomplishments are the only accomplishments.


So isn't everyone by that definition kind-of an atheist?


Sure, but not totally, this is what i mean: Today's definition of atheist states that all hypothesis' have a natural origin or explanation. Here's where the total atheist of today and the scientific atheist in practice deviate. While many scientists might take an atheistic approach to solving a problem in biology they still go home and thank god for their life and and many blessings. This is the only difference. Atheism is predominate in all of modern society, it is directly responsible for all advances in science, and yet is completely unrecognized for its contributions by the religious and religious supporters.

Today the domain of the supernatural clings only to morality and creation. That is the difference, when someone today says 'I'm an atheist' they are really only atheistic about two extra subjects than most religious. So why should modern atheist be identified as radical for trying to put a natural hypothesis to explain morality and creation? Great scientist throughout history who refused to accepted the god hypothesis have been viewed as radical. The best example of atheism is our society was pointed out by Richard Dawkins who said: "We are all atheist about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Perhaps if the atheism in all of us was recognized, those of us who push atheism one step further wouldn't seem so radical.


With regard to my thoughts on the atheistic approach I have been told to "Remember, Secular (atheist) scientists fought hard to keep the Big Bang Theory out of the classrooms because they dismissed it as religiously based." This comment was supposed to show how the atheistic approach could hinder science.

I would like to remind everyone that all new idea's in science are dismissed at first, not because of credibility or context, but rather, because the old ideas have so many supporters. Scientist have dedicated there lives to supporting theories, written books, based subsequent theories upon said theories, and are not so quick to have their pride and life's work tossed out. Further, the big bang theory is still in direct contradiction with the genesis version of creation, which states that all of existence was created in six days. Trust me there are a lot of people who still hold this view. The fact that the big bang theory was put forth by a catholic priest named Georges Lemaître only proves that the religious often take an atheistic approach to science. Had he represented the theistic approach he would have directed his efforts to proving how the universe was created in a day, which took place only 6,000 years ago as the holy bible clearly states.


Atheism is an approach to problem solving, its not anything other than that. Those who try and state that atheism is new kind of religion are way off. Such a statement could be compared to calling the scientific method a religion. For truly that's all atheism is; It's just an unrecognized step in the scientific method that rules out supernatural explanations. I'm grateful for atheism, and so should anyone who appreciates the level of knowledge and understanding that we have today.

Comments (6)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I believe you totally missed the point of your friend's challenge.
There are countless colleges, universities, and charities that were started in the name of God. You have not mentioned anything that was done in the name of Atheism. Just because ancient man attributed many natural phenomenon to God that can now be explained by science, does not make it an atheist accomplishment. Actually it is just the opposite. It is in the colleges and universities started by Christians where scientific thought and method got its start. So in reality, what you attribute to atheists is actually a triumph of God and Christianity.
3 replies · active 668 weeks ago
I beg to differ, i think you have missed the point of this post. I realize that not much is done IN THE NAME of "not believing in supernatural entities", i never claimed that there were such things. However i do claim that many things have been accomplished that are a direct result of atheistic thinking. Atheistic thinking is a type of problem solving where gods and supernatural things are not plausible hypothesis' . There are many examples of Christians using atheistic thinking to problem solve and result in ideas, and technologies that benefit mankind. Newton was a fanatic Christian, The man who discovered radiometric decay and the founder of modern physics was a Christian, its those very physics of radiometric decay that we use to prove the antiquity of the earth and the false teachings of Christianity, i could go on, so could you. PLEASE NOTE: religious books do not speak of physics or chemistry, in fact they teach direct contradictions to modern science, i would argue that religion hinders science.
Explain to me how physics and modern medicine is a triumph of God and Christianity, feel free to cite chapter and verse to support your argument.

AND IN RESPONSE: "Just because ancient man attributed many natural phenomenon to God that can now be explained by science, does not make it an atheist accomplishment."

I am not stating that some natural occurring phenomenon is the accomplishment itself, but understanding how and why the phenomenon occurs IS the atheistic accomplishment. Religious dogma and doctrine does not help us understand the natural world. plain and simple.
I would also argue that large steps forward in our understanding of the world were initiated by the Greeks, pre-dating Christianity, yet would you or anyone say that Aristotle or Pythagoras' contributions are to the world of science are a triumph of Greek mythology?
He's not denying that the money to support a hospital or university wasn't started by a religious organization. He's saying that the scientific method does not involve religion as an application in solving answers in the natural world. One is useless in the lab if they are satisfied with "God did it" as an answer and therefore, isn't interested in finding out anymore because a new discovery could contradict their religious account of creation.
Robert Grosseteste is generally considered to be the founder of the tradition of scientific thought.( the scientific method). The fact that he was a theologian takes the steam out of this line of thought
I believe i responded to this argument in the post,

"I'm sure you could argue "hey many of the people who made these scientific discoveries were religious." True, yet despite whatever beliefs they held, they took an atheistic approach for solving problems, or rather a scientific approach that does accept the supernatural as a plausible hypothesis."

I feel i've also responded to this argument (though worded in a different form) in my reply to Bob.

I have also pointed out in my original post how NOT using supernatural hypothosis' allows humans to understand our world better and thus accomplish more. Again, I have pointed out that the scientific accomplishments of Christians have no correlation to their faiths, but i will go one step further to drive this point home.

You have pointed out that a theologian was the founder of scientific thought, implying a correlation between his accomplishments and theology. Your seem to be stating that somehow his faith or belief system enabled him to accomplish the defining of the scientific method. Please clarify how his those two things correlate.

For example a good reply to this question would be in this form "I paige feel that Robert Grosseteste's creation of the scientific method was the result of his belief in god(s), (Insert supporting argument here)

If you are unable to show some correlation, then i say that your argument is not valid, my former position stands and no steam has been taken anywhere.
Thank you for your comments both of you, i look forward to your responses.

Post a new comment

Comments by