you might find the op of this thread goes along those lines
Is Atheism Unscientific?
- Thread starter th.w.heller
- Start date
- Status
Atheism cannot be considered scientific. Agnosticism and theism are the most scientific choices.
Theism scientific? Atheism is more scientific than theism but not as much as Agnosticism.
It really depends on what type of atheism you're talking about.
An atheist who says "There's zero possibility that any god could ever exist anywhere, and I refuse to examine any evidence that even suggests the contrary" is being unscientific.
But, in my experience, there just aren't that many atheists who are like that.
I know a lot of atheists who are scientists, so I guess that means at the very least that atheism is not incompatible with science.
An atheist who says "There's zero possibility that any god could ever exist anywhere, and I refuse to examine any evidence that even suggests the contrary" is being unscientific.
But, in my experience, there just aren't that many atheists who are like that.
I know a lot of atheists who are scientists, so I guess that means at the very least that atheism is not incompatible with science.
Oh dear, I fear people are using the term 'atheist' incorrectly again. When will this ever stop?
No, it's merely grounds for showing that the specific religions of most of the world's population are unscientific.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
Of course not. Atheism is really just a bold front. There are no true atheists if a standard definition of atheism is used. Heck, even dawkins won't admit to being a "strong atheist". He is a weak atheist, which of course, all are, with the possible exception of the late Jeff Dahmer.
There are no positive arguments for atheism, no logical deductions which lead to this philosophy. It is nothing more than a parasite of Christianity. Usually disaffected fundamentalists with to much time on their hands. They are (at least the "new variety") rabid anti Christians. They have to be because if Christianity is true, they are toast. So they spend hours on forums like this trying to help themselves learn to sleep nights.
Of course, I am here to make sure they don't
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
what a stupid reply. Science cannot PROOOOVE anything. But there are more arguments in favor of the existance of the biblical God than you can shake a stick at, just none that you are willing to accept. Your atheism does not rest upon science, but rather willful ignorance.
Christians come in all shapes and colors, just like atheists, so lumping will probably get you into a lot of trouble here. The vast majority of Christians accept evolution and thus are brainwashed just as you are. A small number, such as myself, understand that evolution is a popular fairytale, devoid of good scientific evidence. Of course, we must here define evolution as the molecules to man variety, and not simply "change" which deceiving atheists and evolutionists love to do to muddy the waters.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
"atheism is not incompatible with science."
science is based upon the biblical notion of causality. The assumptions of science are accepted axioms of the biblical theist, which might explain why the vast amount of scientists, past and present, are theists, And the vast amount of the founders, where biblical theists. Atheists can do science, but you have to keep a close eye on the little fellers because they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
science is based upon the biblical notion of causality. The assumptions of science are accepted axioms of the biblical theist, which might explain why the vast amount of scientists, past and present, are theists, And the vast amount of the founders, where biblical theists. Atheists can do science, but you have to keep a close eye on the little fellers because they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
No it's not. You clearly have never worked with scientists. I have, and on the shelves, were IDL manuals, and the Fortran Cookbook, not the Wholly Babble.
Sorry kid, but you just don't know what science is.
Christians can spell existence.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
so, are you saying science does not assume causality or are you saying that causality is not a biblical concept or are you just saying nothing at all?
th.w.heller
Registered Member
Just a few points to try to stay on track here
(1) For the sake of argument let's define an atheist as someone who denies the existence of an entity that guides the universe beyond natural laws. This ties in with my previous attempt to define a workable deity.
(2) If I'm going to hold the atheists' feet to the fire (i.e. how can they exclude the existence of a deity (see number 1) without adequate data?) I must also hold the feet of religionists to the same fire. Depending on the religion ascribed to some fairly extraordinary things are said to exist/occur and just as with the atheists these extraordinary things should be backed up with extraordinary proof if we consider ourselves scientists. If not aren't they both, religionists and atheists, making a leap of faith?
(3) It is unfortunate that these questions bring out such emotion on both sides of the issue. As scientists shouldn't we be doing our best to minimize emotion and instead look dispassionately at the situation as we know it?
(1) For the sake of argument let's define an atheist as someone who denies the existence of an entity that guides the universe beyond natural laws. This ties in with my previous attempt to define a workable deity.
(2) If I'm going to hold the atheists' feet to the fire (i.e. how can they exclude the existence of a deity (see number 1) without adequate data?) I must also hold the feet of religionists to the same fire. Depending on the religion ascribed to some fairly extraordinary things are said to exist/occur and just as with the atheists these extraordinary things should be backed up with extraordinary proof if we consider ourselves scientists. If not aren't they both, religionists and atheists, making a leap of faith?
(3) It is unfortunate that these questions bring out such emotion on both sides of the issue. As scientists shouldn't we be doing our best to minimize emotion and instead look dispassionately at the situation as we know it?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Things that could be true, but have not yet been supported with evidence are called hypothesis in science. We do not have to prove them wrong. The data does not fit with the existence of a diety, and no other supernatural effect is supported, so the God hypothesis can be dismissed.
Why do you insist on saying beyond natural? There is nothing unnatural about reality.
Are you that desperate for a straw man argument?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
If only inanimate natural laws are at work here, there is no God.
That is not a logical or scientific argument and in fact it makes no sense at all. Can you say more please?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
In virtually all concepts of God, he is seen as the factor responsible for the wonder/complexity/order we see in the universe. If these are the result of passive and natural relationships between forces, then He becomes an unnecessary proposition.
- Status