Is Atheism Unscientific?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by th.w.heller, Oct 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Well at least you concede you made unscientific comments about assumptions.

    There you go making assumptions again...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    There you go again, twisting words and telling lies. I said science tries to avoid making assumptions, I didn't say it never made assumptions. Stop stuffing a straw man.

    If you knew any science, it would show in your writing. You know pseudo science and metaphysics, nothing more.

    But still you obfuscate, and bring no proof to the table. Shame on you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Science does not try to avoid making assumptions. Some scientists try to avoid making assumptions or make as few assumptions as possible which doesn't make any difference since without making assumptions science would be impossible.

    If you knew any science you would know that science would be impossible without making assumptions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Fighting a losing battle OIM.
    Noone is fooled anymore noone. Just can it!
    You've got nothing, nothing, your own misguided ( eyes bogging out of your head ) rationale is worth shit around here. take it somewhere else.
     
  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Just not true. I guess that's why you aren't a scientist, and can't tell the difference between science and religions.

    As the Spud says; You got nothing.
     
  9. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    You say that based upon ignorance and a lack of education.

    If you had any scientific background or any understanding of basic logic or physics you wouldn't say such unscientific religious nonsense.

    I suggest you go back to high school and take a high school level physics course so you can learn how to use the scientific method.

    "When we make an experiment we have to assume a causal chain of events that leads from the atomic event through the apparatus finally to the eye of the observer; if this causal chain was not assumed, nothing could be known about the atomic event." -- Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy
     
  10. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    You still have nothing. Quoting 'Physics and Philosophy'? No thanks, please stick to pure science.

    Also, I asked you to express yourself in your own words, and yet again you fail. A series of sound bites doesn't make your case for you.
     
  11. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    LOL. You don't care for physics and philosophy?

    Do you know who Werner Heisenberg is?

    What's that?
     
  12. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "Science tries not to make assumptions, period. You'd know that if you'd ever been involved in any scientific field."

    You are misunderstanding which doesn't surpise me. Perhaps your hatred for Ann Coulter has blinded your vision so permit me to attempt to straighten you out. You are referring to the scientific method. I am referring to the foundations of the "philosophy of science" itself. If you took the time to even google "assumptions of science" you would quickly discover, to your embarrassment, you have no clue in your pretty little head.

    http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm (note #3)


    "The idea that the Earth was created by some god or force of nature pre-dates the Old Testament. It's a very old mythos, and not exclusive to one religion, or religious text. So no, it's not a 'biblical concept', it is pan-cultural."

    There are assumptions in these statements you just made. Here are a few:

    1) A book written before the bible was compiled proves that the bible used other such books for its source material. Can you prove this assumption?

    2) That because the concept of a God who created the world can be found in other cultures that this weakens my arguement somehow. How so?

    (My discussion related to the patriarchal faith religions today (Judeo-Christian-Islamic) as opposed to other middle eastern religions such as hinduism, budism etc.)

    If you are claiming to be a scientist then I suggest that either you are a poor one or you never had any training on the foundations of science.
     
  13. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    "This is hardly fine-tuning."

    Victor Stenger"

    I wanted to get back to this quote of Spidergoats. I see now that Stenger is where Spidergoats gets many of her talking points as he wrote the book God: The Failed Hypothesis. Stenger is a second string atheist believer. Here is a review of Stengers work:

    some relevent quotes:

    "Stenger’s argument is this: We do know enough to disprove the existence of God (big G) because we can define the attributes or effects big G would have in His interaction with the world; and since we can define them, then we can test the particular big-G model against the evidence that would either vindicate or annihilate it. Thus, he isn’t actually arguing that no god exists, but that the big G (“a God having the attributes that are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God”) does not exist."

    Here is how he stacks the deck in his favor:

    "Stenger argues that any claim of evidence put forth by a theist–be it an actual miracle or some scientific fact that seems to point to the existence of God–cannot count as real evidence “if a plausible scientific model consistent with all existing knowledge can be found” that makes God’s existence unnecessary. For if such a model can be imagined, “then the [theistic] claim fails.” And now hold your breath, because this is a direct quote of the very next line: “The [scientific] model need not be proven to be correct, just not proven to be incorrect.”

    but is Stenger really just an atheist nutcase?

    "What Stenger is actually putting forth is a kind of twofold absurdity. First, that it is possible to come up with “a plausible scientific model consistent with all existing knowledge.” All knowledge? Surely he doesn’t mean all knowledge.

    He really does. Stenger thinks it is really rather easy precisely because as a physicist, he’s a reductionist. That is, he truly believes that physics explains everything–and already has, according to its latest models–and therefore all knowledge can be reduced to physics."

    on fine tuning....

    "Here’s just one example, in regard to what is called fine-tuning. For about a quarter of a century, scientists have been collecting more and more data that demonstrate that the universe seems to be so finely calibrated in its laws, parameters, and conditions that such fine-tuning must have an intelligent, purposeful cause, especially when we take into account the delicate balances that allow for the extremely complex biology found on Earth. What is Stenger’s riposte?

    Theists who argue that the universe is fine-tuned to earthly life have the burden of proving that no other form of life is possible, not just on other planets in our universe but in every conceivable universe that has different physical parameters. They have provided no such proof and it would seem that such a proof is impossible."

    The above sounds very similar to Spidergoats reasoning on this thread and since she quoted him I think it is safe to assume this is where her "reasoning" is coming from. Spidergoats and her atheist mentor are putting the burden of proof upon theists to prove no other types of life can exist anywhere in the universe or other imagined "universes". This also explains why on one post I recall Spidergoat stating there is only one universe and then later writing about other universes. Hopefully reasonable people can see what is happening here. Atheists are making up stuff for which no observations exist to support and then suggesting theists disprove it! Incredible!!!

    "So, as long as Stenger can imagine another universe entirely different from ours, then nothing in our universe counts as evidence. That is the kind of reasoning that runs throughout God: The Failed Hypothesis, page after page."

    so, in conlusion, while Spidergoat considers "fine tuning" arguments "flawed", it is actually her arguements and those of Stengers which are hopeless flawed.

    "As the history of science should make evident, since such models regularly replace one another, relying on consistency and practical use to define a scientific model only tells you that, as far as you know, this is the best way to describe such and such. It does not make a demonstrably definitive statement about all reality and hence all possible knowledge. No scientific model–on Stenger’s own definition–could demonstrate what it would have to demonstrate either to prove the existence of what it describes or to prove the non-existence of what doesn’t fit the model. Therefore, Stenger’s entire argument proves nothing at all.
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    A couple of counterpoints:

    I have said before that nothing supernatural has been shown to exist yet, therefore naturalistic explanations are still more valid than any other. That is why a plausable scientific explanation, even if not yet proven, must first be discounted before it would be reasonable to consider a theistic one.

    Stenger says, as you quoted, that the scientific model must be consistent with all (presently) existing knowledge, not all possible knowledge. Since his case against theism is a scientific one, that is all he is qualified to talk about. Other authors like Hitchens use other kinds of arguments.


    As far as fine-tuning, you mistakenly assume Stenger is arguing for multiple universes. He is only talking about theoretically possible universes given different parameters. Calculations prove that conditions favorable to star formation are possible within a relatively wide range of variables. Stars, of course, are responsible for the creation of all heavier elements needed for life.

    Since life on Earth is only one data point, we don't know if the universe is fine-tuned. We could be the exception, one of the few spots where conditions were right. Even so, life was nearly wiped out several times. With asteroids zooming around and stars going supernovae, the universe seems rather hostile to life.


    You cannot say that. The Miller-Urey experiments prove that conditions of the early Earth were indeed favorable for the creation of the organic chemistry precursors of life. Abiogenesis is an example of one of those scientific explanations based on all available knowledge. You would have to prove first that it could not happen before creationism would acheive any credibility. The formation of life does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics because the Earth is not a closed system.
     
  15. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Dan,

    "He really does. Stenger thinks it is really rather easy precisely because as a physicist, he’s a reductionist. That is, he truly believes that physics explains everything–and already has,"

    And you believe that 1 book written by a bunch of humans explains everything. Wow it's so easy.

    "scientists have been collecting more and more data that demonstrate that the universe seems to be so finely calibrated in its laws, parameters, and conditions that such fine-tuning must have an intelligent, purposeful cause"

    This is a pure leap without any logic and no way of proving. In fact you are using the discovery by science of the complexities of various systems to make the claim that there must be an intelligent hand, making a blind leap to a blind belief in a creator.

    Is atheism unscientific ? is the question. You claim yes, why ?

    Are you suggesting that we only allow the christian broadcasting channel to determine what is good science.

    We have already been there and moved on.

    ""As the history of science should make evident, since such models regularly replace one another, relying on consistency and practical use to define a scientific model only tells you that, as far as you know, this is the best way to describe such and such. It does not make a demonstrably definitive statement about all reality and hence all possible knowledge"

    Unlike you and other believers, we do not claim to know everything that is why we question and question and question. We don't claim to have answers to questions that have not been asked. You apparently know this, so please tell us what the next great scientific discovery will be since you already know, you should be able to tell us.

    If not go join the pyschic friends hotline, they never have to prove any claims either.

    JA
     
  16. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    There is nothing supernatural about the First Cause/Prime Mover. Therefore your counterpoint is invalid.
     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    A first cause is not necessarily supernatural, I agree. Calling this God is, however, an unsupported leap.
     
  18. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Why? God is the word that people use for the First Cause.
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    If that is all it is then atheists can believe in it too. However, God is a term commonly known to mean something quite different, an intelligent entity with great power.
     
  20. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    No. Wrong. That would be called theism. Atheists are fundamentalists. They don't believe in logic, causality, or the first motion.

    How do you know it's different?
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2008
  21. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Maybe Its Cause We Dont Know Anything Like God, Hmm? Maybe? Just Maybe?
     
  22. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    We have been over this hundreds and hundreds of times, and the conclusion is that atheism is definitely a religion. Radical atheist terrorist want to eradicate the world of all other religions other than atheism.

    Many atheist have a desperate need to believe they are not radical self-righteous extremists.
     
  23. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    lixluke,

    I am not a radical atheist terrorist. I am atheist/agnostic. But if I woke up one morning and all of the worlds religions were gone and everyone was working towards solving the worlds problems for a change I wouldn't be upset about it. Not in the least.

    By the way are you a christian, muslim or other ?

    Answer either of the first two and it's you that wants to eradicate all of the worlds religions so it's actually you who are the religous terrorist.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page