Is Atheism Unscientific?
- Thread starter th.w.heller
- Start date
- Status
Let's assume for a second that your argument isn't flawed, how do you know that this proves that there is one god? Why wouldn't it be several gods?
Last edited:
Atheist is just a title given to those who do not believe a God exists. *RAGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*
RUNNNNNNN!!!!!!!! LOGICCCCCCCC!!
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
"Our universe is "not entirely habitable"? By area, weight, or volume, the Earth compared to the rest of even the solar system amounts to a ratio so small it is close to zero. So, it would be more accurate to say that the universe is uninhabitable."
Agreed, but you missed what I was trying to say. The universe is inexplicably fine tuned for life in its contants, but it is still mostly unhabitable. The earth is likely unique in terms of habitability as far as we know now. And the list of habitability requirements goes up with further research.
"The fine-tuning argument is flawed. Since we don't know what kinds of life are possible, we cannot say that the universe is fine-tuned for life. In another kind of universe, there could arise different kinds of life."
another kind of universe??? Are you now suggesting this isn't the only universe after earlier saying just the opposite? As I said before, we have no evidence that any other kind of life other than the kind we see now is even possible. So your argument is invalid until such a time as other life forms are discovered. My prediction is that no other life forms exist. So far, so good.
"promoters of design often use mutually contradictory logic: On the one hand the creationists and God-of-the-gaps evolutionists argue that nature is too uncongenial for life to have developed totally naturally, and so therefore supernatural input must have occurred. On the other hand, the fine tuners (often the same people) argue that the constants and laws of nature are exquisitely congenial to life, and so therefore they must have been supernaturally created. They can't have it both ways."
your logic here is flawed. These are two different issues. Earth, in its present form is congenial for life. It is not congenial for life to form, it is congenial for existing life to survive. No where is it congenial for life to form because there are no circumstances in this universe where chemicals would naturally arrange themselves to form a living thing. And there is no hypothetical primordial soup which would be congenial for chemicals to break the laws of thermodynamics to form either. Life comes from Life and this is the only observation scientists have ever observed. Abiogenisis is a flat out myth.
I have no idea what the rest of your post was saying. I will look up your article later.
Agreed, but you missed what I was trying to say. The universe is inexplicably fine tuned for life in its contants, but it is still mostly unhabitable. The earth is likely unique in terms of habitability as far as we know now. And the list of habitability requirements goes up with further research.
"The fine-tuning argument is flawed. Since we don't know what kinds of life are possible, we cannot say that the universe is fine-tuned for life. In another kind of universe, there could arise different kinds of life."
another kind of universe??? Are you now suggesting this isn't the only universe after earlier saying just the opposite? As I said before, we have no evidence that any other kind of life other than the kind we see now is even possible. So your argument is invalid until such a time as other life forms are discovered. My prediction is that no other life forms exist. So far, so good.
"promoters of design often use mutually contradictory logic: On the one hand the creationists and God-of-the-gaps evolutionists argue that nature is too uncongenial for life to have developed totally naturally, and so therefore supernatural input must have occurred. On the other hand, the fine tuners (often the same people) argue that the constants and laws of nature are exquisitely congenial to life, and so therefore they must have been supernaturally created. They can't have it both ways."
your logic here is flawed. These are two different issues. Earth, in its present form is congenial for life. It is not congenial for life to form, it is congenial for existing life to survive. No where is it congenial for life to form because there are no circumstances in this universe where chemicals would naturally arrange themselves to form a living thing. And there is no hypothetical primordial soup which would be congenial for chemicals to break the laws of thermodynamics to form either. Life comes from Life and this is the only observation scientists have ever observed. Abiogenisis is a flat out myth.
I have no idea what the rest of your post was saying. I will look up your article later.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
because there is only one beginning and one cause.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist."
a completely made up definition to avoid the consequences of taking a stand on the issue. Only wimps do this and atheists are the biggest wimps I know. Go to evilbible.com and see what this atheists says about the definition of atheism.....
a completely made up definition to avoid the consequences of taking a stand on the issue. Only wimps do this and atheists are the biggest wimps I know. Go to evilbible.com and see what this atheists says about the definition of atheism.....
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
If there is some illogic in the belief that God exists I sure wish you and others here would be so kind as to point it out. Atheist always state this but never provide the logic to support it. I have already offered the logic that proves atheism is illogical and that logic itself presumes theism. No one has even come close to refuting it.
Let me repeat. No logic exists which supports atheism. Athiesm is a completely 100% illogical belief. And it is a lie that no evidence exists in support of theism. The evidence is abundant and varied, which is why the founders of our country called it "self evident". Atheists are fundamentally damaged mentally which is why they are blind to the obvious.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
Are you Carico in disguise?
Do you think the notion of causality has its origin and basis in the bible?
How so?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
What a strange question. Atheism is the rejection, with prejudice, of the extraordinary assertion that supernatural creatures exist and exert control over the natural universe, for the precise reason that it is not accompanied by extraordinary evidence, or indeed by any evidence at all. This is a textbook-perfect exercise of the Rule of Laplace, one of the most important components of the scientific method. One does not need "evidence" to reject an absurd hypothesis that is based entirely on hearsay and primitive instincts, and in fact one is perfectly justified in treating it--and the hypothesizer--with disrespect.
As I have stated it many times, the fundamental premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system. Scientists have been testing that premise, and the scientific method that is derived from it, for five centuries and it has never come close to being falsified. You are exactly right that we don't have the unwarranted "certitude" of the religionists, because science can never prove something true. But, as I have also often stated, we in effect use the legal principle of "true beyond a reasonable doubt," and in those five centuries no respectable evidence has been presented that casts reasonable doubt on the premise that there are no supernatural creatures whimsically screwing around with our universe. To call that "smugness" is a teensy bit of a value judgment, but we indeed feel justified in basing the scientific canon on the premise that the natural universe is a closed system.
That falsity of that statement is so well known that as a Moderator I hereby accuse you of trolling for even inserting it into this discussion. Don't do it again because trolling is a violation of the forum rules. The Pope himself has assured his flock (and the rest of us) that evolution is proper science and does not conflict with the Catholic faith. Catholic schools and universities teach good science and the Jesuits are notable for it. The mainline Protestant denominations fall into the same category, and AFAIK so do the Eastern Orthodox and the LDS. That leaves only the fundies, a typically wacky American movement, and they do not speak for all Christians or even most Christians.
As I noted above, and as another member has also pointed out, science does not prove theories. Scientific theories can be disproven, or they can be tested and peer-reviewed so exhaustively that we judge them "true beyond a reasonable doubt," but that's not the same thing as being "proven" in the manner of a mathematical theory or even a detective mystery.
Those who talk about science "proving" things do not understand science.
That's one of the roots of our hostility toward literalist religion. All of the accounts of supernatural events are set in the distant past, and for the most part have been handed down orally.
The exceptions are strikingly unsupportive of the hypothesis. The time Jesus is alleged to have lived was a high point in civilization, a peaceful, orderly society with a pervasive government and meticulous recordkeeping. Yet there are no contemporary records of the miracles of the New Testament; nothing about Jesus was recorded for posterity until long after his death.
Joseph Smith's revelations are even more recent yet equally unsubstantiated. God is, apparently, as inscrutable as the Martians, who always land in hillbilly country instead of on the quad of the nearest university.
It's instructive to see mere mortal Haile Selassie become Ras Tafari Makonen and then somehow be revered as a prophet. We've actually gotten to watch this "miracle" occur and it's nothing but good healthy metaphors conflated with wishful thinking and a little too much pot. We can't help but suspect that all the equally unsubstantiated past miracles were of the same ilk.
Yes, friends. The burden of proof is on the person with the extraordinary hypothesis, i.e., the religionists. We have no obligation to "prove" that their gods do not exist, any more than you have an obligation to "prove" to me that Winnie the Pooh was just a stuffed toy or that Lord of the Rings is not a history book.
I'd be tempted to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really know that little about how science works.
The natural laws (not the "laws of science," scientists don't make laws) are there, we just keep discovering nuances. The example that most laymen have a passing familiarity with is the theory of relativity, and it's sometimes represented as "overthrowing" Newton's Laws of Motion. But that's balderdash. It's simply a refinement to Newton's Laws under extreme conditions that Newton could neither reproduce nor measure. Newton's Laws still work perfectly, down to any arbitrary decimal place you can measure, in the everyday world.
Antiscientists are fond of trotting relativity out as an example of how the canon of science keeps being upset, but it doesn't. It just keeps getting bigger, that's all.
More pure balderdash. Atheism may be a belief, but it is a strictly rational one. It's the belief that there has never been any extraordinary evidence--indeed no respectable evidence of any kind--to support the astoundingly extraordinary assertion that gods exist. At least that they exist in some way that's important to us, i.e., that they perturb the functioning of the natural universe as they are consistently reported in the Stone Age fairytales of the religionists.
Well at least when it comes to good old Lix I can be confident that he's not being disingenuous. He honestly doesn't have a clue how science works.
Science is based on the premise that the natural universe is a closed system. This premise has been tested by thousands of scientists for hundreds of years, most of whom would be delighted to be on the cover of People magazine as The Scientist Who Disproved Science. Good science tells us that the statement, "The natural universe is a closed system" is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyone who says otherwise, without offering supporting evidence, preferably extraordinary evidence, is being not just unscientific but antiscientific.
Last edited:
Dan. NP
The definitions I provided are very accurate, I did not hear you complain about the definition of religion. If you have something to say about that just to be fair then go ahead. See below.
Definition of atheism:
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist.
Definition of religion:
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
The definitions I provided are very accurate, I did not hear you complain about the definition of religion. If you have something to say about that just to be fair then go ahead. See below.
Definition of atheism:
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist.
Definition of religion:
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Why must there one first cause? Why can't there be a pantheon in the beginning? Why couldn't twin gods spring into existence at the same time?
Dan,
You wrote:
"If there is some illogic in the belief that God exists I sure wish you and others here would be so kind as to point it out. "
The illogic is not so much in the belief there may be a god. The illogic is claiming to know how, when, where and why etc etc. You aren't just believing in a spirit. You claim knowledge to all answers to all things via the magic book, the one and only, oh wait there are others aren't there, damn it, damn those others. That's the problem. No one can prove there is no god, but the illogical part comes in when religions try to claim they know what, who etc god is. And you know this how ? You know you are the chosen ones how ? You know a god exist for sure, how ?
You haven't proven jack !
The problem with religion is that if anything, because of it's lack of all knowing and yet claiming the all knowing they actually take away any logical reasoning for a god scenario.
If they were god inspired, the books would be perfect as god is perfect. They would be all knowing. Or are you suggesting that god would lead us to believe things even our most religious turned away from because we grew past him, like slavery.
ja
You wrote:
"If there is some illogic in the belief that God exists I sure wish you and others here would be so kind as to point it out. "
The illogic is not so much in the belief there may be a god. The illogic is claiming to know how, when, where and why etc etc. You aren't just believing in a spirit. You claim knowledge to all answers to all things via the magic book, the one and only, oh wait there are others aren't there, damn it, damn those others. That's the problem. No one can prove there is no god, but the illogical part comes in when religions try to claim they know what, who etc god is. And you know this how ? You know you are the chosen ones how ? You know a god exist for sure, how ?
You haven't proven jack !
The problem with religion is that if anything, because of it's lack of all knowing and yet claiming the all knowing they actually take away any logical reasoning for a god scenario.
If they were god inspired, the books would be perfect as god is perfect. They would be all knowing. Or are you suggesting that god would lead us to believe things even our most religious turned away from because we grew past him, like slavery.
ja
Last edited:
Could you please clarify on what you mean by that?
NP Dan,
you wrote:
"Atheists are fundamentally damaged mentally which is why they are blind to the obvious."
I think that about does it for me. You are obviously not interested in continuing your charade any longer. You have resorted to complete nonsense and you know it. I suggest you get some sleep or something and come back when you have you sh^t together.
You went where people go when they run out of places to run.
you wrote:
"Atheists are fundamentally damaged mentally which is why they are blind to the obvious."
I think that about does it for me. You are obviously not interested in continuing your charade any longer. You have resorted to complete nonsense and you know it. I suggest you get some sleep or something and come back when you have you sh^t together.
You went where people go when they run out of places to run.
Science tries not to make assumptions, period. You'd know that if you'd ever been involved in any scientific field.
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.
That's hilarious. Without assumptions science would be impossible.
You'd know that if you ever took a high school logic class or had any scientific background.
Last edited:
Assumptions are made for some proofs, but scientific method via experimentation makes no assumption of the outcome, as that can bias the results. You'd know that if you'd ever done any science.
I have worked in several scientific arenas. I studied physics myself. I also studied computing, so logic is familiar to me.
Now, why don't you actually make a point and back it up with your own thoughts, and words. Assuming you have any.
- Status