FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Atheism is not scientific.





dshorr
I understand this topic kinda sits on the border between the religion forums and science forum but I felt that it was better suited to the science forum.
Many atheists and others who don't believe in God say that God cannot exist, becuase there is no scientific way to prove that he does. But, by the same token, God can't be proven not to exist by the scientific method so therefore as far as science is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table.
Reaper
You’re correct. We atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. Which is why we turn to what we believe. But religions cannot prove that he does in fact exist either, which is why this argument will remain a stale mate for a long long time.
But may I ask what your question has to do with the name of this post? You mentioned nothing about atheism being scientific.
polarBear
No philosophical position is scientific. It's philosophical.

Buying a schizofrenic illusion of an allmighty god that is -for any practical purposes- deaf, blind and mute doesn't have to do with anything other than your personal esteem for your brain.

Your hypothesis works backwards too! That's a good starting point.
springbok
Atheism in itself is a religion. I cannot believe that atheists say that they are not religious. To be religious one must believe in something and practice it.

Atheists believe that God does not exist, there is no higher power. They practice this belief by doing their utmost to disprove or persuade others to disbelieve in thier own religion. They may not believe in a higher power or divine being/s but believing that there isn't is still believing.

A true atheist would not believe anything and would not try to prove or disprove religious beliefs and not pass comment when someone does. Simple avoidance of the topic would suffice, maybe a simple Speak to the hand

Therefore I believe that this is a religious and not a scientific topic.
BruceTheDauber
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion.


No, it is not. Atheists have nothing in common with each other except that they don't believe in a particular thing. They don't have any practices or rituals or special beliefs in common. How can it be said that they all follow the same religion?

Quote:
I cannot believe that atheists say that they are not religious.


Why not? If someone doesn't do any religious things, like taking part in rituals or prayers, or have any supernatural beliefs, in what way are they religious?

Quote:
To be religious one must believe in something and practice it.


Indeed, one must. What do atheists believe, and what do they practice, that makes atheism a religion?

Quote:
Atheists believe that God does not exist, there is no higher power. They practice this belief by doing their utmost to disprove or persuade others to disbelieve in thier own religion.


The majority of atheists don't bother trying to convince anyone about atheism. They just get on with their lives, and if you didn't mention it to them, you might never know they were atheists.

Quote:
They may not believe in a higher power or divine being/s but believing that there isn't is still believing.


So, is not believing in Father Christmas a religion? Should it be called afatherchristmasism?

Quote:
A true atheist would not believe anything and would not try to prove or disprove religious beliefs and not pass comment when someone does. Simple avoidance of the topic would suffice, maybe a simple =;


That's silly. Most people are inclined to express their beliefs, whatever they happen to believe. If I believe football is boring, or law is a good career choice, or that UFOs are not alien space ships, or shiraz is tastier than cabernet, I would probably pass comment when someone said the opposite thing. Why not the same with atheism? A true atheist is just as likely to pipe up in defence of atheism as a true football fan is likely to pipe up in defence of football, when challenged.

Quote:
Therefore I believe that this is a religious and not a scientific topic.


It's a religious and a scientific topic. Many religious people insist that the world is a few thousand years old, was created in a few days, was once flooded entirely, and so on. Science, throug geology, astronomy and biology, strongly indicates that none of that is true. Although science by itself does not prove the non-existence of God (or some versions of God, at least), it does make the Biblical version of God highly implausible. It makes many religious people look silly, because they insist on believing things that are contrary to the evidence. Science undermines traditional religions.
the_mariska
Reaper wrote:
You’re correct. We atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. Which is why we turn to what we believe. But religions cannot prove that he does in fact exist either, which is why this argument will remain a stale mate for a long long time.
But may I ask what your question has to do with the name of this post? You mentioned nothing about atheism being scientific.

Trying to prove that God exist with scientific methods would be like writing a novel using only mathematical formulas. Those both are impossible as the method used does not match to the object. People can feel or not feel the presence of God, can believe or not believe in Him, but no one can prove His existence, as if He exists (and I believe so) He is transcendental and immaterial.
Subsonic Sound
Funny thing, but in most serious scientific circles, absence of proof IS proof of absence.

If a scientist were to say 'I've discovered that cheese can defy gravity!' he would be asked for proof. He would fail to produce any, and we'd know full well that cheese cannot defy gravity.

'Guys, I've discovered that the moon is an optical illusion!'. No proof, the moon is not an optical illusion.

'Guys! The world was created by an omnipotent, omniscient being!' No proof, the world was not created by an omnipotent, omniscient being.

I'm not trying to persuade any of you religious people that god doesn't exist any more than that cheese can't defy gravity. You believe whatever you want. But he doesn't, and it can't. Smile





Also, please don't confuse belief with religion. Yes, Atheists do have beliefs. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have a religion. I believe in the Euro, but I don't worship it.

A fervently Christian person thanks God for small victories, does things in God's name, and basically includes God in all aspects of their life. THAT is a religion. A convinced Atheist doesn't go round saying 'Hah! No God created THAT!', they just shrug, and get on with their lives. Don't give any god of any kind a second thought.

Honestly... what are you saying Atheists worship? The core concept of Atheism is the belief that there is nothing TO worship. It's no more a religion than Liberalism.
Indi
Subsonic Sound wrote:
Funny thing, but in most serious scientific circles, absence of proof IS proof of absence.

No, that's not entirely correct. In science - all science - theories require evidence (not necessarily proof, because "proof" is an extremely strong concept in science). That means claims that something exists require evidence in order not to be dismissed, but it also means that claims that something does not exist require evidence as well.

If you say "I have a block of cheese that defies gravity", you must provide evidence. If you say "I have a block of cheese that does not defy gravity", you must also provide evidence. The thing is, in practice it doesn't necessarily work out that way, because the evidence that any given block of cheese will not defy gravity is manifold. No one has ever observed a block of cheese - or anything with mass - defy gravity, and no-one has provided any plausible scientific theory that may suggest that one can. So while you do technically have to provide evidence that your cheese does not float, that experience gets provided for you automatically by our acquired knowledge and experience. The only time you ever actually really need to provide evidence manually is when you are making a claim that violates our acquired knowledge and experience.

As the saying goes, "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". That doesn't mean that mundane claims do not require evidence. However, the evidence for mundane claims is... frankly... mundane.

Where the lack of evidence does affect science is when deciding what assumptions are valid when formulating theories. For example, imagine a person that has no concept of "air" - they are completely unaware that there is a colourless fluid all around them. This person wants a theory for what keeps birds in the sky. The person comes up with three theories. 1.) The birds are kept in the sky by God. 2.) The birds are kept in the sky by pushing down on some invisible thing with their wings. 3.) The birds are kept in the sky by pulling themselves up on some invisible thing hanging from the heavens.

Now, each of these three theories has a fantastic element in it - invisible things that the bird is pushing or pulling on, and God of course. So the person starts investigating. Eventually, they find evidence for the existence of something around them that can be pushed against - maybe by noticing that trees sway in the wind. They find no evidence for God or anything hanging from the sky. This absence of evidence is not evidence that God or things hanging from the stars don't exist. It is simply the lack of evidence that they do. Thus, the person would accept theory 2 as the most likely true.

Subsonic Sound wrote:
Also, please don't confuse belief with religion. Yes, Atheists do have beliefs.

Again, no, not entirely correct. Some do, some don't.

Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God ("a-" = the lack of; "-theism" = belief in God) - not belief that God does not exist. It seems to be a common misconception that people must either believe something is true or believe it is false, and there can be absolutely no grey area in between, or other possible options. The real world isn't quite so binary.

Do you believe Ronald McDonald was named after a real person - a relative of the founder of McDonald's? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Most likely, you just don't care. Not caring is another type of lack of belief.

Or... maybe you do care, but you don't know for sure. Not knowing is another type of lack of belief.

Or... maybe you've never even heard of McDonald's. Ignorance is yet another type of lack of belief.

So "atheist" includes people who believe that God does not exist. But it also includes people who don't know, don't care or haven't even heard of the concept of God. Do those people "believe" anything? Not really. Not by any definition of the word "believe" that I've ever heard.

So no, atheists don't necessarily believe. Some do, some don't. All theists believe - by definition - but not all atheists.

However...

(... and this is where it really gets interesting...)

... not all atheists do not have a religion.

Yup, you heard right. The word "atheist" means "not theist"... not "not religionist". "Atheist" does not mean the same things as "areligionist".

There are atheist religions, such as Zen Bhuddism or Shinto. You can be a religious devotee and an atheist, as long as you're devoted to a religion that does not have a god.

So, sorry to pick your comment apart >_<, but it's wrong on all counts:
- Atheists do not necessarily have beliefs.
- Atheists may have a religion.

Now... as for the original post...

dshorr wrote:
Many atheists and others who don't believe in God say that God cannot exist, becuase there is no scientific way to prove that he does. But, by the same token, God can't be proven not to exist by the scientific method so therefore as far as science is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table.

Mm... no... you've reached the right conclusion, but by the wrong road.

There is a way to prove that God exists. Find him. Get him on Larry King doing interviews. Have him part a sea or two for us. Simply put, get someone to show you God - objectively - and you'll have your proof. Yes, there is no way to prove that God doesn't exist, but it's very easy to prove he does (of course, none of this figures on how easy or hard it is to actually find God). Hell, you don't even need to actually find God - just find evidence of his existence that cannot be rationally explained by any other theory.

But the real reason God isn't on the table as far as science is concerned is because any theory that includes the idea that God exists cannot be disproven. As you said, you can't prove God doesn't exist, so if you have a theory that says God exists, you can never prove it's wrong. A requirement for scientific theories is that they be falsifiable - so since any theory with God cannot be falsified, it doesn't satisfy the requirements to be a scientific theory.

To put it in simpler terms... the fundamental rationale behind science is to seek out answers, to eventually (hopefully) learn the truth. That's the point of science. If there are no more questions, then there is no more science. We know all we need to know. We're done. Now, if you introduce God into science, you suddenly know all the answers. "Why is the sky blue?" "God made it that way." And so on. Eventually, every question will boil down to "because God made it that way", because we will know that God is ultimately behind everything. At that point, all science will be little more than just reading a mystery that you already know the ending of.

That's not to say that science won't lead to God eventually. But as soon as God enters science, science ends. God is the final solution to science, and therefore should be the absolute last theory we must settle on in science. Bringing God into science is the ultimate last resort. Because if we get to the point that we have to bring God into the equation... then we've found the equation for God. Thus, bringing God into science should not be done lightly. (And no, we are nowhere near the point where we have to bring God into science.)

So you are correct, God is not on the table as far as science is concerned. At least, not yet. And if and when he ever is, it will mean we're pretty much at the end of science.
the_mariska
Indi wrote:

To put it in simpler terms... the fundamental rationale behind science is to seek out answers, to eventually (hopefully) learn the truth. That's the point of science. If there are no more questions, then there is no more science. We know all we need to know. We're done. Now, if you introduce God into science, you suddenly know all the answers. "Why is the sky blue?" "God made it that way." And so on. Eventually, every question will boil down to "because God made it that way", because we will know that God is ultimately behind everything. At that point, all science will be little more than just reading a mystery that you already know the ending of.

Well, and I thought that this way of considering God and science used to be only in prehistoric/ancient. People, that couldn't explain the phenomena happening around them, invented various stories about the gods of sun, spring, harvest, etc. But they also tried to find the truth by other ways, and that is how all of the science branches (including philosophy Smile ) came from. So I don't really think that taking up God will mean the end of science, they two have coexisted since ever Wink

Quote:
That's not to say that science won't lead to God eventually. But as soon as God enters science, science ends. God is the final solution to science, and therefore should be the absolute last theory we must settle on in science. Bringing God into science is the ultimate last resort. Because if we get to the point that we have to bring God into the equation... then we've found the equation for God. Thus, bringing God into science should not be done lightly. (And no, we are nowhere near the point where we have to bring God into science.)

So you are correct, God is not on the table as far as science is concerned. At least, not yet. And if and when he ever is, it will mean we're pretty much at the end of science.

I don't think that this will ever happen. Maybe we could get some knowledge about God using scientifical methods, but it will always be incomplete. If even 4-dimensional space is something too complicated for me to imagine (though a few friends of mine can do so), what about God, who is far more tremendous and complex.

(One of the maths professors at our local university came up with a geometrical conception of God as a infinitely-many-dimensional being, existing over the time. Sounds a bit weird, but illustrates well how little can our poor brains get known about Him.)
Donutey
Science explains how, and religion/spirituality is the why.
Indi
the_mariska wrote:
Well, and I thought that this way of considering God and science used to be only in prehistoric/ancient. People, that couldn't explain the phenomena happening around them, invented various stories about the gods of sun, spring, harvest, etc. But they also tried to find the truth by other ways, and that is how all of the science branches (including philosophy Smile ) came from.

Absolutely, but think about it more carefully... by trying to explain some phenomena without falling back on "God made it happen", what is the implicit assumption you're making?

Or to put it another way, if you want to know what makes the sky blue - without getting the "God did it" answer - what do you have to assume?

The answer is: before you can even start to investigate something scientifically, you have to assume that God didn't do it - that God wasn't involved at all.

Before you can make any kind of useful investigation of what makes some things float on water and others not, you first have to assume that the cause is something you can actually investigate - such as its mass, its shape, its composition, etc. Otherwise, there's no real point in investigating it. Thus any science investigation begins with the implicit assumption that God is not involved in the subject of investigation. (By contrast, most religion begins with the assumption that God is the prime mover, the first cause of everything, which is the same as assuming that it was not a more mundane thing that can be investigated scientifically - when religion claims God created the universe, that presupposes that some kind of force or something else concrete did not.)

Note: science does not require assuming that God does not exist. It requires assuming that God is not involved - particularly in whatever you're investigating. And, as I said, when you finally get to the point that you cannot explain the cause of some phenomenon without assuming God did it, then you have found God (not in the metaphorical sense, literally). And if you found God, now you know the underlying cause behind all phenomena. What comes after that? Nothing but bookkeeping - essentially science is complete.

the_mariska wrote:
So I don't really think that taking up God will mean the end of science, they two have coexisted since ever Wink

Coexisted only by not stepping on each other's toes. Throughout history, whenever science got into religion or religion got into science, all hell broke loose. And it's still happening today, what with people trying to rewrite science texts used to teach children in order to accomodate some religious belief or another, and with people trying to reinvent ancient religions to take modern scientific knowledge into account.

But if you bring one of those systems into the realm of the other completely, you're going to destroy it. Try to explain any religion using science, and the whole thing is going to unravel - the only way out is to stop the process by saying "because God said so", or in other words, by taking science back out of it. Try to bring God into science, and science is going to fall apart - and the only way to stop it is to assume that God is not actually involved at all, or in other words, by taking religion back out of it.

the_mariska wrote:
I don't think that this will ever happen. Maybe we could get some knowledge about God using scientifical methods, but it will always be incomplete. If even 4-dimensional space is something too complicated for me to imagine (though a few friends of mine can do so), what about God, who is far more tremendous and complex.

(One of the maths professors at our local university came up with a geometrical conception of God as a infinitely-many-dimensional being, existing over the time. Sounds a bit weird, but illustrates well how little can our poor brains get known about Him.)

The problem with all of this thinking is that you are not doing anything resembling science. You are presupposing a pattern that you have no non-subjective evidence for believing to exist, then seeking and/or creating evidence to suit that pattern.

It is a well known fact - extensively studied - that the human mind is prewired to see patterns. Any two dots can look like a pair of eyes because faces are one of those patterns that all humans are hard-coded to see - hell, even two carets and an underscore can look like a face, and not just a face, a face with an expression and character: ^_^. But in general, if you go looking for a pattern in something - anything, from the grain of a piece of wood to the shapes of the clouds... literally anything - our biology and our psychology guarantees that you will find it, even when there is no real pattern there. So by presupposing a pattern, you're setting yourself up to find it. By presupposing a pattern that you have no real non-subjective evidence to believe exists, you're setting yourself up to see something that isn't necessarily there. That doesn't actually mean that what you're looking for (ie. God) isn't there, it just means that whether it is or not you're probably going to find it regardless, which means you're not really making an objective and scientific search for it.

For example, why do you think that God "tremendous and complex", and cannot be comprehended by human minds? What evidence do you have to support that theory? I'd bet none, other than that's what your religion teaches - and your religion teaches that because... God says so. So your professor friend is starting from the idea that God is inconceivable, then coming up with some other inconceivable thing and claiming that it somehow relates to God by virtue of them both being inconceivable. That's not science, that's "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" done with Euclidean geometry.

Donutey wrote:
Science explains how, and religion/spirituality is the why.

I disagree. Science explains how, philosophy is the why. Philosophy includes religious and non-religious speculation on why things are the way they are. Not all religions explain anything at all, and with many of them, even when they do, the explanations they offer are trite.
whammer
Well, a lot of things have been said on this topic. Here's the bottom line.

1. The word "Atheist" by itself means no belief in a god or gods. Religion revovles around the belief in a god or gods and is defined as follows:

Quote:
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Let's deconstruct the word Atheist.

"A" = without, like the "a" in amoral.
Theist = Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Therefore, Atheist means one without a belief in a personal god just as amoral means one without morals. And since religion by definition requires a belief in god, Atheisism is not a religion.

Using definitions is always a good way to start to validate one's thought since definitions are the basis of language.

2. Logical arguments can't prove a negative. Science requires a logical process. Therefore science can't disprove the existence of god. I cannot prove flying space monkeys don't exist. I need evidence and how can i get evidence on something that doesn't exist?

So to prove god doesn't exist isn't a requirement for an Atheist. To prove the existence of god is a requirement for Theists. I can't prove god doesn't exist, but I can put forth evidence that religious beliefs can be absurd.

Take the early notion that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo first observed this to be wrong. He was convicted of heresey and spent the latter years of his life under house arrest and had to retract his observation.

Consider the flood. I can go on about many things of this story but I'll just comment on the height of the water after the flood. The story says the water level reached a height 20 feet above the highest point of land. Mt Everest is the top of the world at 29,000 feet. Water is frozen at that altitude and the air is so thin that it cannot sustain life for any period of time.

Also, if all the snow and ice on the earth melted, there would still be dry land. Where did all that other water come from and go from the flood? They found water on mars so maybe it went there eh?

So the many logical inconsistancies like these preclude me from believing in a god as presented in any religion known to man. They don't prove god doesn't exist but since these claim to be the words and stories of god, I cannot accept the logical dilemas. Thus, prove to me god exists and then I'll believe.
LeviticusMky
It is often very humorous when Theists try to convince Atheists how incorrect they are.

The Theists will always use the inherently flawed logic that they've been taught from their religion in an attempt to show how God is logical. Us Atheists all end up bickering about minute things regarding the way we state our arguments.

Atheists are like any progressive group in that we have no ONE set of beliefs, and subsequently no one Thing to rally around (except the realization of the silliness of religion). This ends up meaning that we end up arguing amongst ourselves as much as with the Theists.
Indi
LeviticusMky wrote:
Atheists are like any progressive group in that we have no ONE set of beliefs, and subsequently no one Thing to rally around (except the realization of the silliness of religion). This ends up meaning that we end up arguing amongst ourselves as much as with the Theists.

Is this a problem? A unified front is only necessary when intending to use strength in numbers to attack and/or defend. I have no interest in "converting" (or "deconverting", as the case may be) theists.

I do, however, believe in speaking out when I see something untrue being passed off as truth - or when I see anyone's beliefs being insulted by another's arrogance and/or ignorance. That goes for whether the person doing the insulting is a theist or an atheist, and there are many guilty parties on all sides.

Case in point: "Atheists" in general don't realize the "silliness of religion". I certainly don't. I would never call anyone's religion silly, and I object to being lumped under your intolerant label. I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean that I think anyone who does is "silly", or that their beliefs are "silly". And I certainly don't think all religion is "silly". I have no intention of being quietly lumped in under that kind of intolerance, thank you.

Maybe "Atheists" know as little about who atheists are and what they believe as theists. In that case, let them be educated, along with the "silly" theists.
Michael B
I think some one needs to say this so I will.

Science is only one mode of thought

It is meant to deal with physical matter and only physical matter.
When you want to deal with the non-physical (God) you use a different mode of thought: Philosophy. Different task different tool, driveing a nail is done with a hammer, a screw needs a screw driver the same applies to thinking. Sience is not suposed to prove or disprove if God exits, it is suposted to find how the universe works.

Personly I beleive in God. And till science can give a workable alternative I will continue doing so. Science can't explain how life came to be from no living matter. Nor can they say what started the "Big Bang". Till they can explain thins like that I will simply not belive it.
Reaper
Michael B wrote:
I think some one needs to say this so I will.

Science is only one mode of thought

It is meant to deal with physical matter and only physical matter.
When you want to deal with the non-physical (God) you use a different mode of thought: Philosophy. Different task different tool, driveing a nail is done with a hammer, a screw needs a screw driver the same applies to thinking. Sience is not suposed to prove or disprove if God exits, it is suposted to find how the universe works.

This is true science and god should have nothing to do with each other, yet religions continue to try and use scientific facts to prove there religion is true by using often distorted facts.
Now i could say that scientists don't in turn try to prove god does not exist by using with science, but that would be a lie. Anyways there will always be one person trying to prove that god does or does not exist.
CompactHaven
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion.


This coart ruled Atheism a religion. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
mephisto73
It is a common missconception that it cannot be proven that God doesn't exist. If you formulate a hypothesis in a meaningful way it can be tested. So it's not a problem of science really, it is a problem of hypothesis formulation. One common concenption of God is that he/it is omnipresent, and not a physical entity. God is basically an idea, but also ideas can be tested against observations, but the problem is that there is no consensus on how to describe the idea.

The easiest way would be to say that the idea about God is about faith and belief - thus God exist because people evidently believe in it (the idea).

The problem arise when people try to find evidence of the physical manifestation of an idea - it is bound to fail because there is no real hypothesis.
BruceTheDauber
Quote:
There are atheist religions, such as Zen Bhuddism or Shinto.


Shinto is not an atheist religion. It has gods, which play an important role in the religion. Not least, they are objects of worship.


Quote:
A requirement for scientific theories is that they be falsifiable - so since any theory with God cannot be falsified, it doesn't satisfy the requirements to be a scientific theory.


That's not true. It depends on what you say about God. Some statements you might make about God are falsifiable, others are not. If I say that the creator of the universe is a bearded gentleman who lives at 222B Baker Street, London, and always has since the beginning of time, it's pretty likely I can be proved wrong.

Quote:
But as soon as God enters science, science ends. God is the final solution to science, and therefore should be the absolute last theory we must settle on in science.


If you find God, science doesn't end. You will still want to know what God is doing, and how, and why, and science will still be the way to answer those questions. God is not the final solution to science. If he existed, he would just be another interesting set of phenomena.
Lord Kuat
CompactHaven wrote:
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion.


This coart ruled Atheism a religion. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874


What's a coart?
Subsonic Sound
CompactHaven wrote:
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion.


This coart ruled Atheism a religion. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874


I still disagree - and of course US high-court rulings don't affect me at all. But I do agree that in those circumstances it should be treated as one.
7Pound7
Indi wrote:


That's not to say that science won't lead to God eventually. But as soon as God enters science, science ends. God is the final solution to science, and therefore should be the absolute last theory we must settle on in science. Bringing God into science is the ultimate last resort. Because if we get to the point that we have to bring God into the equation... then we've found the equation for God. Thus, bringing God into science should not be done lightly. (And no, we are nowhere near the point where we have to bring God into science.)

So you are correct, God is not on the table as far as science is concerned. At least, not yet. And if and when he ever is, it will mean we're pretty much at the end of science.


I really dig your philosophy!

But also: atheists don't exist. Maybe they are 'rebels against God' or so, but a-theist in the purest form cannot exist. Since then they would be God themself and obviously they are not...

Very Happy

7Pound7
The Conspirator
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion.

Atheism is no more a religion than theism is. Theism in itself is not a religion, theism an umbrella term for the belief in deities, weather it be monotheism, polytheism or pantheism. Atheism is an umbrella term for the non belief in deities not the none belief in spiritual or magical forces. You can be an atheist and still believe in spiritual forces, you just wouldn't believe in a an all powerful all knowing creator bing.
Theism and atheism are not religions but 2 category's of types of religions.
Reaper
7Pound7 wrote:

atheists don't exist. Maybe they are 'rebels against God' or so, but a-theist in the purest form cannot exist. Since then they would be God themself and obviously they are not...

Very Happy

7Pound7

Awesome, now that I know that I don't exist I can't break laws anymore, I'll be back in a few hours I gata go rob a bank. But seriously people never take exact definitions of words seriously, besides they use the word theism in Atheism to say it means the exact opposite of that.
There are plenty of words that mean one thing but are interpited as the exact opposite because of a few added letters or words into the original word or saying. for instance, gay actually means happy not people of the same sex having sex together or marrying each other. But people still see it as the second one not the first.
The Conspirator
[quote="7Pound7"]
Indi wrote:

But also: atheists don't exist. Maybe they are 'rebels against God' or so, but a-theist in the purest form cannot exist. Since then they would be God themself and obviously they are not...

Very Happy

7Pound7

Thats not true, I do not believe in God, I do not except the existence of any creator bing, omniscient, omnipotent bing or ant powerful supernatural bing that controls things. And I am not a rebel against anything I don't believe in. I am an A (non) theist (believe in a god or gods). God and gods originate as ancient explanations for the origin of things and why things happen (like storms and such) and later to control and manipulate people. And I am not my self a god, I have no supernatural powers, I didn't create the universe and I obviously am no omniscient (there are many things I do not know, many things you do not know. there are many mastery's in the universe). I am a mortal non theist human and there are many others out there like me.
AzTeK
the bible can't be proven right or wrong, but atheists tend to be more educated, meanwhile religious people are much more close minded eventhough they deny it, most atheists are into science and they study it, meanwhile the people who say their "atheists" just to try and piss others off are wanabees, making other atheists look bad
7Pound7
Hmm interesting,

Most scientists, throughout all ages were religious.
Einstein even said the following:

"Science without religion is paralyzed, religion without science is blind"

- Albert Einstein

And I think that is true.
And I also think that people who want to stick to A-theism are very short sighted and live in a bubble, knowing somewhere that someday it will splash.

anyway science does never bite religion and the other way around. It's only short sighted people who do that.

7Pound7
The Conspirator
You say that yet theists are the ones to believe in God or gods that gave no evidence of his/hers or there existence.
Lord Kuat
7Pound7 wrote:
Hmm interesting,

Most scientists, throughout all ages were religious.
Einstein even said the following:

"Science without religion is paralyzed, religion without science is blind"

- Albert Einstein

And I think that is true.
And I also think that people who want to stick to A-theism are very short sighted and live in a bubble, knowing somewhere that someday it will splash.

anyway science does never bite religion and the other way around. It's only short sighted people who do that.

7Pound7


You know Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, right? Are you going to follow everything he said or just choice excerpts here and there in regards to religion.

He also said:

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of 'humility.' This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."

Einstein's "religion" was basically that of science, except to a higher level. I feel the same way he does, but much different from you (in regards to what I have gleaned from other threads).

Also, there are growing numbers of atheists among the ranks of scientists, to the point they are the majority, unless you want to disagree with the journal Nature. I'm sure you, as a um.... scientist... have heard of that journal, right?

As far as your bubble argument... yeah, right. They know it will burst, o rly? I think you are the short sighted one, who can't see past his own blinding ignorance.
paulbarter
Subsonic Sound wrote:
Funny thing, but in most serious scientific circles, absence of proof IS proof of absence.

If a scientist were to say 'I've discovered that cheese can defy gravity!' he would be asked for proof. He would fail to produce any, and we'd know full well that cheese cannot defy gravity.

'Guys, I've discovered that the moon is an optical illusion!'. No proof, the moon is not an optical illusion.

'Guys! The world was created by an omnipotent, omniscient being!' No proof, the world was not created by an omnipotent, omniscient being.

I'm not trying to persuade any of you religious people that god doesn't exist any more than that cheese can't defy gravity. You believe whatever you want. But he doesn't, and it can't. Smile


I would like to suggest that if you observe the universe, then there does exist evidence for the esxistance of an intelligent creator. The probability of even complex chains of carbon forming in the universe (never mind life) when compared to the number of stars in the universe (and it is not infinite as a lot of people think) is highly highly unlikely. The exact conditions required to make this possible are mathematically laughable. Living organisms consist of incredibly complicated structures that contain information and there has been no observation of anything where information has been created out of matter without the intervention of an inteligent source.
The Conspirator
You failed biology and science didn't you?
Firs of all 100,000,000,000 stars times a 100,000,000,000 galaxy's equals out to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and those are not accurate numbers, theres allot more.
Secondly, not all life is complex, thee are very simple organisms out there, so simple that in a few million years under the right conditions they can form. Even if the odds are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Thirdly, there is 0, zip, zilch evidence for a "intelligent creator", none what so ever. And no amount pseudoscience is going to change that.
mephisto73
paulbarter wrote:
I would like to suggest that if you observe the universe, then there does exist evidence for the esxistance of an intelligent creator. The probability of even complex chains of carbon forming in the universe (never mind life) when compared to the number of stars in the universe (and it is not infinite as a lot of people think) is highly highly unlikely. The exact conditions required to make this possible are mathematically laughable. Living organisms consist of incredibly complicated structures that contain information and there has been no observation of anything where information has been created out of matter without the intervention of an inteligent source.


I'm sorry, but until we understand how life started there is no way one can make plausible statements like
Quote:
The exact conditions required to make this possible are mathematically laughable
.
You simply cannot know this. Maybe life is an almost inherent expression of matter and the laws governing the universe? Maybe not. But until there is more knowledge there is no base for anything but assumptions.
Reaper
Let's not forget this, math has its limits you moron and it can't solve everything. The odds of a life exterminating asteroid hitting earth is laughable too but the funny thing about that, it happened.
Yes it may not be in your fancy book but hey its just a book, and a book is only as smart is the person who wrote it. And yes a person did write the bible and there is no proof that he had any help writting it, unless you count the special voices that told him what to do because he was insane of course. Though maby i'm not giving this guy enough credit, who knows maby he was actually a genious tyrant who had a great idea of controlling people though a book, hell it worked didn't it?
megafx
I work by the cause and effect theory whereby that every effect must have a cause, evey cause is an effect adn therefore must have a pre-cause. e.g. Butterfly beating wings causes amplified sizmic waves that ha sthe effect of an earthquake somewhere else. So if everything must have a cause then teh earth must too but most people say that the earth was created when the universe was, therefore the universe itself must have a cause. But if there is no universe then the cause of the universe must have its own first cause because it is not inside the universe. So, if you're stillw ith me then God can be the ultimate cause.
The Conspirator
Quote:
The odds of a life exterminating asteroid hitting earth is laughable too but the funny thing about that, it happened.

Are you making this up or is some one telling you this?
The odd of a "life exterminating" are 0 in this soler system and has never happened to the earth. But there are bid asteroids out there, bigger than the on that killed the discourse. The odds may be 1 in a 100,000,000 but if you play enough hand of holdum you will get a roil flush.
You need to do some research into theses topics.
mgumn
you cant work statistics backwards, just because it is statistically unlikely does not mean it does not happen. consider poker, the odds of getting any hand of cards is (1/25)^5 a stupidly small number, if you were dealt any set of cards and then looked back it would seem unlikey, but you got those cards nontheless
DMAonline
Quote:

Using definitions is always a good way to start to validate one's thought since definitions are the basis of language.

2. Logical arguments can't prove a negative. Science requires a logical process. Therefore science can't disprove the existence of god. I cannot prove flying space monkeys don't exist. I need evidence and how can i get evidence on something that doesn't exist?

So to prove god doesn't exist isn't a requirement for an Atheist. To prove the existence of god is a requirement for Theists. I can't prove god doesn't exist, but I can put forth evidence that religious beliefs can be absurd.


Logic can only be pushed so far. Then philosophy must be speculated on further. I agree that atheists just dont care for the ceremonies and organised religion to the point where they dont believe that god could exist. However, there is still the need for the unexplainable to be somehow explained. What about some numbers that are constant in the universe, cornerstones of mathematics, that without their having value would allow all sorts of theories would fall part, indeed, all matter, such as Cavendish's universal gravitational constant, phi which seems to be part of most growing organisms paterns, or pi without which no circle can be defined. We can explain where they are and how their value can be proved, but why is it set as it is? Is it possible some guy outside the possible dimensions just chose some numbers and said bam! let the universe create itself? I think if you deny there is a possiblility that there is such a being that it says you turn you dont believe in what HAS been proven by experiments. Or they dont care which is probably most atheists stance, which is understandable with some beliefs that people carry on earth.

For the record i am atheist in that i dont believe that god will directly have any karma or effect on my life, but i think that there is some things that phillosphy dictates that may be something like God
illini319
Very intelligent posts so far. I commend most of you for providing mature discourse in this matter. Often times, I find that similar threads turn into the debasing of others' ideas from purely irrational lines of thought. Anyway...

I apologize if I had missed this in an earlier post, but I seemed to not find any mention of this argument:

A fundamental principle that seems to be overlooked in the idea of Atheism being NON-scientific is the concept of negative data. True, one can never disprove anything. But if we get to the nitty gritty, most science can never prove anything either. At best, one can only find consistent overwhelming and independent lines of evidence that is CONSISTENT with a hypothesis/theory. Beyond that, it is a leap to ever say anything is absolutely proven; for in science you would be shot in the head if one ever said always/never. (at least you should be!)

Negative is the ultimate aphrodisiac. It is because any interpretation of negative data is equally plausible. If I were to say God exists in my closet. And I checked my closet and didn't find God, then I would say well.. God doesn't exist in my closet. But maybe it's because I didn't look in that one corner of my closet where God was. Or perhaps I can't see him with my bare eyes; I need a microscope. Or even with a microscope I wouldn't be able to see him because I forgot to turn on the light.

I realize that this is an inane example, but I hope the analogy resonates. The moment you test something and you do not end up with a positive result (in this case, finding God), then any explanation that rationalizes the existence, or even the non-existence, of God is equally plausible. And this is the root as to why Atheism is non-scientific. Its main assertion, that there is no God, is based on a lack of evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
7Pound7
Lord Kuat wrote:


You know Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, right? Are you going to follow everything he said or just choice excerpts here and there in regards to religion.


No i didn't know that and you also don't know it. That was up to him.

Lord Kuat wrote:

He also said:

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of 'humility.' This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."

Einstein's "religion" was basically that of science, except to a higher level. I feel the same way he does, but much different from you (in regards to what I have gleaned from other threads).


This first statement by Einstein that you quote, makes him worship God as a scientist. There is nothing wrong with that and it is what I do too. I don't think you feel the same as Einstein does, or at least I hope you don't.

Lord Kuat wrote:

I'm sure you, as a um.... scientist... have heard of that journal, right?


only freshmen students make such stupid remarks, which you probably are.

Lord Kuat wrote:

As far as your bubble argument... yeah, right. They know it will burst, o rly? I think you are the short sighted one, who can't see past his own blinding ignorance.


your way of replying goes from bad to worse.
Maybe yes i am ignorant but i do not try to raise myself but pulling others down.

7Pound7
Indi
7Pound7 wrote:
Lord Kuat wrote:


You know Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, right? Are you going to follow everything he said or just choice excerpts here and there in regards to religion.


No i didn't know that and you also don't know it. That was up to him.

All too easy:
Albert Einstein (1954) wrote:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
illini319
What does it matter what Einstein believed? Science is one thing, spirituality is another, and philosophy is yet something else. Surely, if one considers themselves scientific, then one shouldn't base their personal convictions on the personal convictions of another fellow. They should base it on empirical evidence and a structured enterprise of uncertainties.
7Pound7
[quote="Indi"]
All too easy:
Albert Einstein (1954) wrote:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.


Of course in 1954 he made this statement. As a scientist, as a person at that time in his life, on that particulary track of the road he was walking upon at that time.

what I meant was: You cannot look into his heart. The way he expressed himself about the marvellousity of nature and the ultimate incapability of 'our science' as he called it, to describe that nature makes him know his place as human being.
He strongly embraces here that divinity is not something up to a scientist to deny...

7Pound7
Indi
7Pound7 wrote:
Indi wrote:

All too easy:
Albert Einstein (1954) wrote:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.


Of course in 1954 he made this statement. As a scientist, as a person at that time in his life, on that particulary track of the road he was walking upon at that time.

*ahem*

Lord Kuat: You know Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, right?
7Pound7: No i didn't know that and you also don't know it. That was up to him.
Einstein: I do not believe in a personal God and I have never (emphasis mine) denied this but have expressed it clearly.

Is there still confusion? I have several more quotes from various times of his life if that's what you need.

7Pound7 wrote:
what I meant was: You cannot look into his heart.

Duh. But we can certainly deduce what he believed by his actions and his words. That would be scientific; using observation to reach an understanding. Einstein would have approved.

7Pound7 wrote:
The way he expressed himself about the marvellousity of nature and the ultimate incapability of 'our science' as he called it, to describe that nature makes him know his place as human being.

The incapability of science??? Back that up with evidence. Everything I have seen of Einstein suggests that science was as religion to him. He believed in it absolutely, and he believed that only science, albeit practiced with a sense of awe for the thing being studied, would lead to truth.

Here's my evidence: "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

7Pound7 wrote:
He strongly embraces here that divinity is not something up to a scientist to deny...
silvermesh
BruceTheDauber wrote:
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion.


No, it is not. Atheists have nothing in common with each other except that they don't believe in a particular thing. They don't have any practices or rituals or special beliefs in common. How can it be said that they all follow the same religion?


neither do many buddhists, wiccans, most self-proclaimed pagans, some crhistians, or a great number of other religions... religion means belief, not organization.

Quote:
Quote:
I cannot believe that atheists say that they are not religious.


Why not? If someone doesn't do any religious things, like taking part in rituals or prayers, or have any supernatural beliefs, in what way are they religious?

again, religion means belief, not action.

Quote:
Quote:
To be religious one must believe in something and practice it.


Indeed, one must. What do atheists believe, and what do they practice, that makes atheism a religion?

this one was already answered by the next line you quoted..

Quote:
Quote:
Atheists believe that God does not exist, there is no higher power. They practice this belief by doing their utmost to disprove or persuade others to disbelieve in thier own religion.


The majority of atheists don't bother trying to convince anyone about atheism. They just get on with their lives, and if you didn't mention it to them, you might never know they were atheists.


I wouldn't say majority. Either way it's a moot point. evangelization does not define religion either, belief does. religion is belief specifically related to "what else is out there" usually concerning afterlife, but often concerning the existence of a god or gods and the specifics thereof.

Quote:
Quote:
They may not believe in a higher power or divine being/s but believing that there isn't is still believing.


So, is not believing in Father Christmas a religion? Should it be called afatherchristmasism?

whether or not a holiday figure exists doesn't affect your afterlife, and it doesn't affect your spirituality, or lack thereof. Religion is what you believe pertaining to god, not what the specifics are. if there is no god, it's still religion, because it's belief about god, and spirituality. technically it is religious to not believe that father christmas is our lord and savior, but there is no point in making a label for it, because the members of all religions already know this is a silly idea. they've already got names for their religions, the father christmas thing is just sort of an assumed notion in that. I don't know, maybe there IS a father christmas religion out there that I just haven't been exposed to.

Quote:
It's a religious and a scientific topic. Many religious people insist that the world is a few thousand years old, was created in a few days, was once flooded entirely, and so on. Science, throug geology, astronomy and biology, strongly indicates that none of that is true. Although science by itself does not prove the non-existence of God (or some versions of God, at least), it does make the Biblical version of God highly implausible. It makes many religious people look silly, because they insist on believing things that are contrary to the evidence. Science undermines traditional religions.


the bible is considered the worlds oldest historical document. science and religion only clash when closed-minded people choose for it to do so. pretty much 95% of all religions have absolutely no canon that contradicts anything that science can prove. The Bible is a very important document not only religiously, but because of the true history that it documents. much of the language is metaphor and imagery, and some people construe this as hard factual language. the bible doesn't contradict science, nor do most religions.

illini319 wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


precisely. an example I like to use is this: science once believed that the earth was flat. why? because the evidence showed that anyone who ever went one way far enough never came back. the only logical explanation was that they fell off the edge. there was no proof that it wasn't flat, so it was.
Egmond
Im of the opinion that religion is outdated. It does fit with the medieval science, a flat earth, but not with ours...
But we all hope for an afterlife...

Anyway, IF there's a "god", why doesn't he make us warship him? And why would he allow those other religions?

NB the word Atheist does mean "not religious" so it's definitely not a religion!
The Conspirator
silvermesh wrote:
BruceTheDauber wrote:
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion.


No, it is not. Atheists have nothing in common with each other except that they don't believe in a particular thing. They don't have any practices or rituals or special beliefs in common. How can it be said that they all follow the same religion?


neither do many buddhists, wiccans, most self-proclaimed pagans, some crhistians, or a great number of other religions... religion means belief, not organization.

Atheism is not a religion, it is a category of belief. It means non theist, any belief system that dose not have any god or gods is atheist just as any belief system that had go or gods is theist.
Religion is spiritual belief. I don't believe in anything spiritual thus I have no religion, if I did, I would have a religion.



Quote:
the bible is considered the worlds oldest historical document. science and religion only clash when closed-minded people choose for it to do so. pretty much 95% of all religions have absolutely no canon that contradicts anything that science can prove. The Bible is a very important document not only religiously, but because of the true history that it documents. much of the language is metaphor and imagery, and some people construe this as hard factual language. the bible doesn't contradict science, nor do most religions.[.quote]
Only by Christan's, out side of Christianity it has no historical value.

Quote:
illini319 wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


precisely. an example I like to use is this: science once believed that the earth was flat. why? because the evidence showed that anyone who ever went one way far enough never came back. the only logical explanation was that they fell off the edge. there was no proof that it wasn't flat, so it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
There is plenty of evidence that the earth is a sphere and you don;t have to sail around it go into space to see it. It was generally excepted many century's before Columbus.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
hyhy
Egmond wrote:
Im of the opinion that religion is outdated. It does fit with the medieval science, a flat earth, but not with ours...
But we all hope for an afterlife...

Anyway, IF there's a "god", why doesn't he make us warship him? And why would he allow those other religions?

NB the word Atheist does mean "not religious" so it's definitely not a religion!


Agreed.

And about proving things. We cant prove there's no God there and i think we wont soon, so y to belive in God? I can think there is a one-eye-fairy somewhere there, which is immortal and cant be seen, and created world. Also i can write book (well there are some in stores, or you can watch cartoons) about it and that doesnt prove nothing. And why wouln't you belive in that? Because 2 miliards other people wont belive that, and cartoons are for kids?
Kaneda
Yes, the topic title is right, atheism isn't scientific. It doesn't claim to be, either. Yes, some "strong" atheists will claim they're basing their belief (no, "knowledge") of God's non-existance on absolute scientific proof. Many don't. Most don't care to prove anything for or against. Some are atheists without even knowing that's what they are - simply because they've never needed to explain what they believe or don't - or given it any thought at all.

I'm one of the people who don't care to prove anything for or against, but don't claim to know either - one brand of agnostic atheism. My belief (which is not religious - we'll get to that) is that I have no need for religion or God to make my life meaningful. That's not based on science, just a choice based on my own experiences - some provable, some unprovable.

Other things mentioned in this thread:

- atheism isn't rebellion against God. To rebel against God, you have to believe he exists. Even for an agnostic atheist, it makes little sense to rebel against something you don't believe to exist or don't care about the existence or non-existence of.

- atheism isn't rebellion against Christianity or any other religion. Sure, some atheists fervently attack religious beliefs. But no atheist I know (and I know a lot) cares. I'm sceptical towards religions, especially when they start influencing politics, but I'll let people believe what they want, as long as they let me do the same.

- atheism isn't lack of morality. Would nice to get that to enter certain thick heads someday.

- atheism isn't a religion. This has been up so many times it's getting ridiculous. No, religion doesn't simply mean "belief system". If it did, the word "religion" would have been scrapped from the English - and every other - language centuries ago. And every single person on the planet would be religious. Even if you have no "supernatural" beliefs, a human's very existence is founded on your implicit and explicit belief in things you don't know for certain to be true. That's not religion, just living your life.

Look at any reputable dictionary, encyclopedia or other reference, from American Heritage to my Danish dictionary, and you'll find no definition that allows inclusion of atheism. Except for two:

- Oxford dictionary defines (among two other possibilities similar to American Heritage) religion as "A particular system of faith and worship". What is faith? When Oxford doesn't define it circularly (as something to do with religion), faith is "complete trust or confidence". So, beside the fact, that the reason for three definitions is that the word faith isn't restricted to religion, religion would be "A particular system of complete trust or confidence - and worship". Sounds like my girlfriend and I started our own religion when we fell in love...

- The Supreme Court of the US has interpreted religion to mean "a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons [Christians]". Yes, that accounts for atheism, but it's defined in exactly that way, not to give an every day definition, but precicely in order to give a definition that allows people to be free to be atheists by way of the First Amendment.

This is why a court can rule atheism a religion. It seems we now live in a time where it's become necessary in the U.S. to protect the right to not have a religion, and specifically to not believe in God. Probably because most Christians asked in a recent survey were more likely to approve of their children marrying a fundamentalist Muslim than an atheist (no offense to Muslims - but it's common knowledge that they're now among the most feared groups in American society, so it would seem, atheists are too).

You can be religious and an atheist, yes. But you being religious then comes from... your religion. Not atheism. You can also be a scientist - or believe in science - and an atheist, but that doesn't mean your atheism is scientifically based.

Atheism is the lack of theism, the lack of belief in existence of deities. That's all it is. No science, no religion implied.
druidbloke
one dictionary definition of science --> 1 {U} (knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.

atheist Definition: unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities.

So being an atheist is just another belief, so is no more scientific than any religion, wether it is more rational as it only takes into account what is in front of us physically is debatable, There are a loads of things science cant prove, it cant proof any of us are conscious, we could just be programmed robots, only we know we are not, so life itself and the existence of gods for now are seperate from science.
illini319
The Conspirator wrote:

There is plenty of evidence that the earth is a sphere and you don;t have to sail around it go into space to see it. It was generally excepted many century's before Columbus.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.


Absolutely not. A classic mistake of overinterpreting NEGATIVE data is to conclude that lacking evidence implies non-existence. Google it, wikki it, do whatever you like to look up that concept. From all reliable sources, negative data can not be interpreted. Just because a God has not been found empirically, by science, does not mean that a God does not exist. Physics still cannot prove how a bumblebee flies. Given all the mathematical models on flight and what we know about how the bumblebee flaps its wings, according to current physics measurements, the insect should not be able to fly. BUT IT DOES. Which means that we are OVERLOOKING something which would be instrumental in helping us understand how it is possible for the bee to fly. I hope this analogy isn't too abstract that you can't see the relationship...
The Conspirator
1. The flapping of a bees wings dose not violate any law of physics. And if it did, that would be evidence that we are wrong. Who ever told you that doesn't know what there talking about.
2. Wiki, maybe, google, I won't a reliable souse of information, googling something will rarely give you a reliable source.
3. If there is no evidence of something, than that is evidence that it doesn't exist.
If some one cal the police and say he say a man being shot at a specific place, they they investigate, they find no evidence of a murder nor evidence that the place has been cleaned recently and the guy can not dose not know who was murdered, who was the murder and can't give a description of ether the murdered or the murder. Would you believe him?
If I told that I saw a 6 foot tall pink rabbit caring a basket full of colored eggs in my living room and I can not provide any evidence of it was ever there. Would you believe me?
If you were a cop investigating something and I am a suspect and and there is no evidence that I was where I said I was at the time of the crime. Would you believe me?
If I said something and could not produce any evidence of it than that is evidence that what I said is not true. It dose not prove it not to be true (if there is no evidence for or against something, though that is evidence against it, it dose not and can not prove its non existence) but it is evidence against it.
When looking at the evidence for something to say if it is true or not, if there is a lack of proof ether way and a lack of evidence ether way than than it become implausible that that "something", is.
druidbloke
The absence of something does not prove it does not exist, it just proves we do not know if it exists or not yet, and thats all, what crime investigators do is a totally different thing, its all about likelihood and within reasonable doubt etc, thats not scienctific reasoning, its probabilities, you have a strange idea of logic. Pure science is logic, yes or no, do we know 100% for sure, and we cant yet, We all wont good souces of information ;b erm I think, google is fine if you know which sites are likely to be reliable, I first found wiki with google.
The Conspirator
druidbloke wrote:
The absence of something does not prove it does not exist, it just proves we do not know if it exists or not yet, and thats all, what crime investigators do is a totally different thing, its all about likelihood and within reasonable doubt etc, thats not scienctific reasoning, its probabilities, you have a strange idea of logic. Pure science is logic, yes or no, do we know 100% for sure, and we cant yet, We all wont good souces of information ;b erm I think, google is fine if you know which sites are likely to be reliable, I first found wiki with google.

I never said it proved anything, I said its evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If there is no evidence ether way, you can not prove it not to be but it makes it less plausible.
dyrtyrice
dshorr wrote:
I understand this topic kinda sits on the border between the religion forums and science forum but I felt that it was better suited to the science forum.
Many atheists and others who don't believe in God say that God cannot exist, becuase there is no scientific way to prove that he does. But, by the same token, God can't be proven not to exist by the scientific method so therefore as far as science is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table.


This statement itself is flawed, by logic, athiesm is more scientific than believing in something that there is no proof of, and also something that defines and dictates every law of science that we have. This is not to say science is absolute, but by this logic neither is religion. Religion is less scientific than athiesm, but a reasonable scientist would not confuse his faith with his scientific beliefs and perhaps agnosticism would be a more scientific alternative.
7Pound7
Indi wrote:


Einstein would have approved.


hehe, thats a pretty strange thing to say. are you family or so?

Indi wrote:

7Pound7 wrote:
The way he expressed himself about the marvellousity of nature and the ultimate incapability of 'our science' as he called it, to describe that nature makes him know his place as human being.

The incapability of science??? Back that up with evidence.


You can find it in the quote by Einstein you gave earlier:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Indi wrote:

Everything I have seen of Einstein suggests that science was as religion to him. He believed in it absolutely, and he believed that only science, albeit practiced with a sense of awe for the thing being studied, would lead to truth.


Well he ONLY said that his admiration for the structure of the world could be called "religious". That is 100% different then saying that science was a religion to him... because that is pure crap talking. Science per definition cannot be called a religion.

Besides that, Einstein would be a person to know that "truth" would always be relative and not absolute.
illini319
The Conspirator wrote:
druidbloke wrote:
The absence of something does not prove it does not exist, it just proves we do not know if it exists or not yet, and thats all, what crime investigators do is a totally different thing, its all about likelihood and within reasonable doubt etc, thats not scienctific reasoning, its probabilities, you have a strange idea of logic. Pure science is logic, yes or no, do we know 100% for sure, and we cant yet, We all wont good souces of information ;b erm I think, google is fine if you know which sites are likely to be reliable, I first found wiki with google.

I never said it proved anything, I said its evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If there is no evidence ether way, you can not prove it not to be but it makes it less plausible.


Proof is a hard thing to come by. Hardly anything in science is actually proof, or proven. As druidbloke mentions, all your examples are hardly logical. Negative data is absolutely uninterpretable. Even things as galactic as a black hole requires POSITIVE data to back up its existence. The very definition of black holes requires that we look at how a black hole (which we cannot measure) affects the space AROUND it. Hence we look at the consequence of a black hole per se, not the black hole directly (since all things, including light, are sucked in). The lack of data in a God simply means that we have yet to prove a God's existence either way. It does not mean that a God doesn't exist. Darwin's Theory remains a theory for a reason...

Atheism blech.... agnostic much better.
The Conspirator
As I said before, lack of evidence is not proof of absence, it is only evidence.
And I never said you had see something to prove its existence. You don't if you can see its effects, it is just as much evidence as seeing it itself. The about God is, all the evidence we have shows that the universe, the solar system, the earth, life and us all formed out of natural processes with out the influence of any divine force.
Soulfire
But there is evidence of God, not an absence of it. People just choose to ignore it, or are completely blind to it.

It's my own theory that atheism doesn't exist at all. Sure you can claim no religion, but something becomes god in your life. Whether it's yourself, food, another person, etc. There is something that is central in your life that you put in front of everything else, your god.
The Conspirator
Soulfire wrote:
But there is evidence of God, not an absence of it. People just choose to ignore it, or are completely blind to it.

No there isn't, everything the theists have ever pointed to as evidence has a not theological explanation or is a misunderstanding.

Soulfire wrote:
It's my own theory that atheism doesn't exist at all. Sure you can claim no religion, but something becomes god in your life. Whether it's yourself, food, another person, etc. There is something that is central in your life that you put in front of everything else, your god.

You still misunderstand what atheism is, it is not a religion, it is a category of belief like theism.
Theism is the beliefs in a god or gods. Atheism is the belief that there is no god or gods. Now a religion dose not need a god or gods for it to be a religion. As long as there is a spiritual aspect to it, it is a religion.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "something becomes a god in yore life." A god basically has 3 definitions. 1. A creator bing that created the universe. 2. An omniscient, omnipotent and or omnipresent bing 3. Very powerful super natural bing or beings. How would an atheist have anything that fits those definitions in his life?
Soulfire
You're way too literal, and there's no way I'm going to get through to you, obviously. You missed my definition of your god in my post. And as for the evidence, well, I could post mountains of evidence, you'd just reject it all, so there's no point.
Lennon
WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN DEBATING IF GOD IS EXISTENT OR NOT.

If we were to argue about evidence for God's existence, we would get nowehere. There are so many indications and no solid proof that god exists.

The question is, is atheism scientific or purely philosophical.

As illini319 pointed out, the atheist that sees that lack of evidence and states there must be no God could still be proved wrong later if the evidence is revised at a later stage.

TO BE AN ATHEIST IS TO STATE THERE IS NO GOD.

There is no science that can prove or disprove this statement. This comes directly from a personal belief, an opinion based on their own experience and understanding of the available evidence.

SO EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE FOR/AGAINST THE STATEMENT, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MYSTERY IS BASED ON OPINION AND IS PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL.

For this reason atheism is a belief, not a discipline.
Indi
Lennon wrote:
TO BE AN ATHEIST IS TO STATE THERE IS NO GOD.

Wrong.

The Conspirator wrote:
Theism is the beliefs in a god or gods. Atheism is the belief that there is no god or gods.

Wrong.

This misconception is pretty much unique to North America. The belief that there is no god is atheism, but atheism is not the belief that there is no god. A nickel is a coin but a coin is not a nickel.

Just look at the word "atheist". As The Conspirator correctly stated, theism is belief in a god or gods. That much is not being debated, correct? We all agree that theism is belief in a god or gods, yes?

Now, what does the "a-" prefix mean in English? It means "not", "without" or "the lack of". Look at "amoral", "the lack of morals", which is not the same as "immoral". It is possible to be both amoral and immoral, but it is also possible to be amoral without being immoral (for example, a machine acts in an amoral fashion, but cannot act in an immoral fashion). Of course, it is not possible to be both moral and amoral. Amoral and immoral are not the same thing.

"Atypical" means "not typical", which is not the same as "rare" or "strange". It is possible to be both rare and atypical, but it is also possible to be atypical without being rare. Of course, it is not possible to be typical and atypical at the same time.

The problem comes from trying to see the world in black and white. It's not. If theism is white, and atheism is anything that is not theism, then atheism is not necessarily black. It also includes the many, many shades of grey inbetween.

The correct definition of atheism is "not theism". That means that atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. NOT the belief that there is no god or gods. There is a huge difference between those two definitions, and that difference is what this debate centers around.

The belief that there is no god or gods is strong atheism. Yes, that is not scientific.

However, simply not believing that there is a god or gods - without necessarily believing that there is not - is weak atheism. Depending on the specific form, that can be scientific.

An atheist who has reviewed all evidence and concluded that it does not justify assuming the existence of a god or gods has indeed used science correctly, and thus their belief can be called scientific. Going the extra step - going beyond saying that there is no evidence for gods to saying there are no gods - that is unscientific.

So atheism in general is not scientific by default, but some forms of atheism are. No form of theism is scientific.
MasterColg
Quote:

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject:
Lennon wrote:
TO BE AN ATHEIST IS TO STATE THERE IS NO GOD.

Wrong.

The Conspirator wrote:
Theism is the beliefs in a god or gods. Atheism is the belief that there is no god or gods.

Wrong.


“One entry found for atheist.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity”

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=atheist

“Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism, however, typically label as atheists only those people who affirmatively assert the nonexistence of gods, and classify other nonbelievers as agnostics or simply non-theists.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist


You are arguing semantics. The common usage for the term Atheist describes someone with a definite belief about God(s). Those that you refer to as weak atheists are typically relegated to agnosticism.
Soulfire
Wouldn't not believing in God, but not believing there is no God also be agnosticism?

I think the "problem" comes in because people associate what was called weak atheism with the word agnosticism, thus the strong atheism is just called atheism in general.

Let's take a look at Webster's definition:
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
SimonWSTS
God and science are actually closely linked.

A lot of people are very much into the theory of the Big Bang etc. and that it must have been something along those lines that created the universe.

However, many of these people veer off into religion by reasoning that for something on the scale of the big bang to occur, there must have been an immense source of energy to cause it all to happen.

This point of energy would be to religious believers, God.
mgumn
god and science are not related. if you mean that physics leaves space for god then yes, there is space for god before the big bang, but god and science are not related.

on another thread i am an aetheist, but only because present evidence does not point toward there being a god. If evidence became available then i would change my opinion. This is in my opinion the true definition of an atheist.
The Conspirator
SimonWSTS wrote:
God and science are actually closely linked.

A lot of people are very much into the theory of the Big Bang etc. and that it must have been something along those lines that created the universe.

However, many of these people veer off into religion by reasoning that for something on the scale of the big bang to occur, there must have been an immense source of energy to cause it all to happen.

This point of energy would be to religious believers, God.


Yes there has to be a cause to have an effect but just cause we don't know what the cause was dose not mean some god did it. For all we know it could have been a massive black hole left over from a previous big band trillions of years ago and that within the warped physics of the event horizon certain quantum events are plausible, events that cause the black hole to loose its gravity causing it to explode. There is a theory that comes out or m-theory that say the big bang could have happened when two d-brains collided. Or perhaps the cause postdates the effect.
Indi
MasterColg wrote:
You are arguing semantics.

Of course I'm arguing semantics. -_- This whole thread is about semantics... whether the semantics that describe an atheist meet the semantic standards of science.

MasterColg wrote:
The common usage for the term Atheist describes someone with a definite belief about God(s). Those that you refer to as weak atheists are typically relegated to agnosticism.

And as I pointed out, the common usage is not correct. The common usage for the term "science" includes many things that the technical definition does not. Obviously we're not talking about the common usage of science, we're talking about the semantically correct, technical definition. If you want to be semantically correct regarding the word "science", why are you opposed to being semantically correct regarding the word "atheist"?

Just because weak atheists are "typically" relegated into the category of agnostic, doesn't mean that that's a correct thing to do. Weak atheists are not necessarily agnostic, and agnostics are not necessarily weak atheists.

Soulfire wrote:
Wouldn't not believing in God, but not believing there is no God also be agnosticism?

No. (It could be, but it could also not be.)

Agnosticism is literally "not knowing whether there is a god". It comes in two flavours, weak agnosticism and strong agnosticism. Weak agnostics say "we don't know if there is a god". Strong agnostics say "we can't know if there is a god". Weak agnostics say that the existence of a god is unknown. Strong agnostics say that the existence of a god is unknowable.

Atheism is literally "not believing god exists". It comes in two flavours also, strong and weak. Weak atheists say "I do not believe in a god". Strong atheists say "I believe there is no god". Weak atheists do not believe in the existence of a god. Strong atheists believe in the non-existence of a god.

Let's match them up now. In each case - atheist and agnostic - you can be strong, weak or neither (if you're neither a strong nor a weak atheist, you're a theist, and if you're neither a strong not a weak agnostic you are sure that a god either exists or does not and are not questioning anything about it). Here's how they stack up:

Theist & non-agnostic: You believe a god exists, and are sure of that belief. You believe the existence of a god is a proven fact.
Theist & weak agnostic: You believe a god exists, although you admit that this is on faith alone. You say that there is no real evidence for the existence of a god yet, but someday we may find proof.
Theist & strong agnostic: You believe a god exists, although you admit that this is on faith alone. You say that there can be no real evidence for the existence of a god, ever, because of the nature of what a god is, so that the only way to know of a god is by faith alone.
Weak atheist & non-agnostic: You do not believe a god exists. You haven't even considered the possibility of a god. You may not have even heard of the idea.
Weak atheist & weak agnostic: You do not believe a god exists. You have simply not even considered the idea, or you have considered it and arrived at the conclusion that there is no god but not ruled out the possibility. You say there is no evidence for a god, but you allow for the possibility that evidence can be found some day, some way.
Weak atheist & strong agnostic: You do not believe a god exists. You have simply not even considered the idea, or you have considered it and arrived at the conclusion that there is no god but not ruled out the possibility. You say there is no evidence for a god, and no evidence can ever be found because of the nature of what a god is, so the only way to know a god exists is to use faith.
Strong atheist & non-agnostic: You believe there is no god. You believe this is a proven fact.
Strong atheist & weak agnostic: You believe there is no god. You say that there is no evidence for a god, but that is possible to find some.
Strong atheist & strong agnostic: You believe there is no god. You say that there is no evidence for a god, and that no evidence can exist because of the nature of what a god is.

(a)Theism and agnosticism are orthogonal concepts. That means that they are totally unrelated to each other. Some of the most famous agnostics of all time have been devout theists (in fact, those are the people the word was originally used to define). Others are atheists. And of course, there are atheists of all stripes, some who are agnostic, and some who aren't
Soulfire
Cool, I'd have to say I am a theist and non-agnostic. Now, could I borrow your definitions and start a poll thread under "Philosophy and Religion." I'm really curious...
Indi
Soulfire wrote:
Cool, I'd have to say I am a theist and non-agnostic. Now, could I borrow your definitions and start a poll thread under "Philosophy and Religion." I'm really curious...

Certainly.

I think I'm a weak atheist and strong agnostic, myself.
The Czar
the_mariska wrote:
Reaper wrote:
You’re correct. We atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. Which is why we turn to what we believe. But religions cannot prove that he does in fact exist either, which is why this argument will remain a stale mate for a long long time.
But may I ask what your question has to do with the name of this post? You mentioned nothing about atheism being scientific.

Trying to prove that God exist with scientific methods would be like writing a novel using only mathematical formulas. Those both are impossible as the method used does not match to the object. People can feel or not feel the presence of God, can believe or not believe in Him, but no one can prove His existence, as if He exists (and I believe so) He is transcendental and immaterial.


You can actually write a novel with mathematical formulas. What if the answer to one mathematical formula is one? So 26 Alphabets, 1 is A.
But then again that would take a long time to decipher and encipher every word into a mathematical formula ... Laughing
D'Artagnan
Atheism AND theism are ascientific...

anyone that try to proof that there is or isn't a god will be fail just why the science is based in experiements and there is no way to do any reliable experiment to prove that there is/isn't a god

i believe that in the future will be able to do such experiement and be sure (or think so..) about the answer, i just think that science isn't prepared to handle such kind of ethereal questions, there's people doubting about "black holes"...
The Conspirator
Science isn't about just experimenting, yes thats a part of it but a small part, its starts with observations. If there is no observable evidence of any God or gods than God become highly implausible.
Indi
D'Artagnan wrote:
Atheism AND theism are ascientific...

anyone that try to proof that there is or isn't a god will be fail just why the science is based in experiements and there is no way to do any reliable experiment to prove that there is/isn't a god

i believe that in the future will be able to do such experiement and be sure (or think so..) about the answer, i just think that science isn't prepared to handle such kind of ethereal questions, there's people doubting about "black holes"...

*ahem*

Far be it from me to point out the obvious, but...

... if science is unable to assume that god exists - or even ask whether he might or not...

... doesn't that make science atheistic by definition?

*cough*
schnitzi
Personally, I'm a "strong" atheist. I say, there is no God -- for the same reason that I say there are no elves living in my neighbor's shrubs. Can I prove there are none? No. But I'm not going to get wishy-washy and say there may be some there. Put another way, would you like to bet on it?

Where do YOU stand on the position of elves living in your neighbor's shrubs?
schnitzi
[quote="the_mariska"]
Reaper wrote:
Trying to prove that God exist with scientific methods would be like writing a novel using only mathematical formulas. Those both are impossible as the method used does not match to the object. People can feel or not feel the presence of God, can believe or not believe in Him, but no one can prove His existence, as if He exists (and I believe so) He is transcendental and immaterial.



If God exists, and can affect the material world in any way, then I don't see why this effect can't be tracked down, measured, and quantified at the point where it occurs.
The Conspirator
schnitzi wrote:
the_mariska wrote:
Reaper wrote:
Trying to prove that God exist with scientific methods would be like writing a novel using only mathematical formulas. Those both are impossible as the method used does not match to the object. People can feel or not feel the presence of God, can believe or not believe in Him, but no one can prove His existence, as if He exists (and I believe so) He is transcendental and immaterial.



If God exists, and can affect the material world in any way, then I don't see why this effect can't be tracked down, measured, and quantified at the point where it occurs.

Exactly! And thats one of the reasons I don't believe in God, we would have found evidence of his existence.
Kaneda
The Conspirator wrote:
schnitzi wrote:
If God exists, and can affect the material world in any way, then I don't see why this effect can't be tracked down, measured, and quantified at the point where it occurs.

Exactly! And thats one of the reasons I don't believe in God, we would have found evidence of his existence.


Sideremark on personal opinion
I don't give much for science explaining any fundamental aspects of life - whether it be the feeling I get when waking up next to my girlfriend, the meaning of life, the joy I get from riding my Ducati on a warm Summer day, or the existence of God. Explaining the colour green to a blind person by saying it's light around the wavelength of 510nm won't give him any appreciation for what that colour does to a forest in spring. I don't need science to make me believe God doesn't exist either.

Back to the point
But one thing that is very astute about what schnitzi says on science and God is this: The effect of God should be possible to track down, measure and quantify.

Of course, any religious person would say that the effect of God is all around us, and any atheist simply chooses to ignore it. Science ignores it. And therein lies the problem. This is why (as often put forth by both Indi, myself and others, in other threads), a theory doesn't become scientific by being provable. Ever since Karl Popper, the most accepted measure of a scientific theory is, that it is possible to disprove.

As schnitzi says, it should be easy to prove whether God exists. And the religious person would take the entire world as evidence that he does. It's impossible to prove, however, that he doesn't exist. A hypothetical machine that could survey the entire universe in a split second wouldn't do it. If science actually managed that, the religious person would simply suggest that God might move faster than that - or he isn't part of the universe at all, but outside of it. Or he is simply not measurable with such a machine.

Any possible event or phenomenon in the entire history of the universe can be taken as proof of God's existance. There's not a single thing that could ever supply proof of his not existing. This is why a theistic religion is not, never was, and never will be, a scientific theory.
Indi
schnitzi wrote:
Personally, I'm a "strong" atheist. I say, there is no God -- for the same reason that I say there are no elves living in my neighbor's shrubs. Can I prove there are none? No. But I'm not going to get wishy-washy and say there may be some there. Put another way, would you like to bet on it?

Where do YOU stand on the position of elves living in your neighbor's shrubs?

That's probably the best brief summary of a strong atheist belief I've ever seen. Nicely done.
vihang
dshorr wrote:
I understand this topic kinda sits on the border between the religion forums and science forum but I felt that it was better suited to the science forum.
Many atheists and others who don't believe in God say that God cannot exist, becuase there is no scientific way to prove that he does. But, by the same token, God can't be proven not to exist by the scientific method so therefore as far as science is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table.


"Humanity sees its reflection in the mirrors that surround it,
and thus gratified, calls this image perfect, good, merciful,
omniscient, omnipresent, holy, just, and above all, love. So
enchanted are these hairless apes with this, that they invent
a special word for it: 'God'."

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God.
That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief."
[Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist"]

And to end it .

"When a dog barks at the moon, then it is religion;
but when he barks at strangers, it is patriotism!"
[David Starr Jordan, Cardiff,
What Great Men Think of Religion]
schnitzi
dshorr wrote:
But, by the same token, God can't be proven not to exist by the scientific method so therefore as far as science is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table.



Let me experiment by replacing "science" with "religion":

"But, by the same token, God can't be proven not to exist by religious means so therefore as far as religion is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table."

Doesn't quite work, does it? You've set up a different standard for science than for religion, ergo your argument is codswallop.
Indi
schnitzi wrote:
dshorr wrote:
But, by the same token, God can't be proven not to exist by the scientific method so therefore as far as science is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table.



Let me experiment by replacing "science" with "religion":

"But, by the same token, God can't be proven not to exist by religious means so therefore as far as religion is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table."

Doesn't quite work, does it? You've set up a different standard for science than for religion, ergo your argument is codswallop.

I honestly can't tell whether you're making a joke or not. >_<

If you are joking, that was hilarious. ^_^

If you're not joking... that was preposterous. -_-
illini319
dshorr does have a valid point. At the heart of religion and science are immiscible belief structures. One could argue that they are both trying to answer similar questions, but ultimately through very different means. Perhaps viewed in a different way, how would one person engage in life and remain as consistent as possible to his/her belief structure? Could this be what this discussion is all about? i.e. If a man were to claim to be a scientist, then he shouldn't utilize any religious means throughout his life. Is this possible? I would think so. He doesn't have to go to church, pray to a God, have any superstitions, or teach his children religion. On the other side of this argument, can a religious man never utilize science and live as successfully as the scientific man? Should he ever take medicine? Should he ever visit the doctor? If he wears glasses, is this not an inconsistency? Or should we change our rules of worship for convenience sake?
D'Artagnan
Indi wrote:
D'Artagnan wrote:
Atheism AND theism are ascientific...

anyone that try to proof that there is or isn't a god will be fail just why the science is based in experiements and there is no way to do any reliable experiment to prove that there is/isn't a god

i believe that in the future will be able to do such experiement and be sure (or think so..) about the answer, i just think that science isn't prepared to handle such kind of ethereal questions, there's people doubting about "black holes"...

*ahem*

Far be it from me to point out the obvious, but...

... if science is unable to assume that god exists - or even ask whether he might or not...

... doesn't that make science atheistic by definition?

*cough*


---"I like you =)"---

well i think that the correct word to use is scientist...

its like the blackhole question the big majority of the scientis believe in it but there's ever a group that will scream and ask you to prove.

You may make the public think that the right thing is there are blackholes, but while there's not an irrefutable proof that there are blackholes - or a most wide question, to prove that the universe is endless - that's not a scientific truth.
nikolaihgs
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion.


If atheism is a religion, then not smoking is as habit and not stamp-collecting is a hobby.
ms_j
springbok wrote:
Atheism in itself is a religion. I cannot believe that atheists say that they are not religious. To be religious one must believe in something and practice it.


A true atheist would not believe anything and would not try to prove or disprove religious beliefs and not pass comment when someone does. Simple avoidance of the topic would suffice, maybe a simple Speak to the hand



As an atheist, I agree! Smile Atheists are the strongest believers. We strongly believe that God does not exist. Laughing
I agree about the "being/not being religious" comment, but the problem is that that's the popular term. It kinda softens the blow when you say "I'm not religious" then "I'm an atheist" or "I don't believe in God".

That's what I do. I am not trying to convince anybody, I just try to avoid the subject.
Ankhanu
ms_j wrote:
As an atheist, I agree! Smile Atheists are the strongest believers. We strongly believe that God does not exist. Laughing


Speak for yourself Razz
As an atheist, my position is that there is insufficient reason to believe in gods, NOT there is no god. These are rather different statements.

With your statement that there is no god, you now take on a burden to provide the evidence to support the claim.
With the broader atheistic claim (insufficient reason to believe), the burden of proof lay with those making claims of existence (or non-existence).

Personally, I've encountered relatively few atheists who would assert that there are no gods... and most of those who do are generally blindly contrary rather than rational.
Bluedoll
This actually a question I have for the scientific method. Does the scientific method agree with what I have written below is what I am asking?

Quote:
As an atheist, I agree! Atheists are the strongest believers. We strongly believe that God does not exist.

I agree about the "being/not being religious" comment, but the problem is that that's the popular term. It kinda softens the blow when you say "I'm not religious" then "I'm an atheist" or "I don't believe in God".

That's what I do. I am not trying to convince anybody, I just try to avoid the subject. – ms_j
This I get! To me this is a true position. It is saying clearly what the person believes, have a nice day kind of thing. No hate. Not forcing anything on anyone. No problems, for me as a believer of God and will even say I doubt it is even a negative with God (thinking of the relationship only) by looking at her position for what it is, which is no evidence which she requires (well yeah, almost everyone agrees with this – there is none) and has a belief not some ongoing argument and so no fault there - understandable.
Quote:
With the broader atheistic claim (insufficient reason to believe), the burden of proof lay with those making claims of existence (or non-existence). - Ankhanu
This is different. Excluding for the present that this may be an idea that might only be a strategy for message board arguments. If you consider it like a stance or some kind of atheistic code or group thing then the dynamics for scientific model changes drastically? Now you have a concept of persuasion, a code of conduct that is applied liberally that can change the attitude of the people involved to a more aggressive approach and less desire for understanding (scientific or otherwise) and call to action when asked questions.

As it relates to just science, does the same apply, the search for answers switches over to the other person rather than looking for the answers as the researcher should do for themselves. If you were doing a science experiment is it not like saying I do not have the answers, so you find them for me? The other claim is the beaker has bubbles in it because it is acid. Prove that it is acid. The problem however for this kind of burden with religion or even just religious beliefs is the claim is coming from a completely different domain and not applicable because it is not compatable for comparison – i.e. faith based for example not scientific.

In the debate world you end up with idiotic arguments occurring over and over again like – “well you can not prove God exists or does not – you need to prove creation theory or evolution. Of course that is followed by something like, “well the bible says so” which is followed by aggressive comments or insults, till finally the winner/loser gets a prize. The only prize is the opponent gets upset enough to leave the debate. Not much of a prize, not very scientific and certainly not very conclusive either way.

I never understood this idea of burden of proof like it was some courtroom strategy when it refers to a persons belief. I think the person can state what they wish and burdens are nothing more than what they say they are especially when you consider science. Should science even know such burdens but wants only to understand what is scientific and as the op said stay on that side of the table when it comes to the scientific method?
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
With the broader atheistic claim (insufficient reason to believe), the burden of proof lay with those making claims of existence (or non-existence). - Ankhanu
This is different. Excluding for the present that this may be an idea that might only be a strategy for message board arguments.

No, this is basic skepticism, and an important tool within critical thinking. It's certainly not limited to messageboards, as it's a principle that goes back to at least the ancient Greeks.

Bluedoll wrote:
If you consider it like a stance or some kind of atheistic code or group thing then the dynamics for scientific model changes drastically? Now you have a concept of persuasion, a code of conduct that is applied liberally that can change the attitude of the people involved to a more aggressive approach and less desire for understanding (scientific or otherwise) and call to action when asked questions.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at. The scientific method is not influenced by particular lines of skeptic or atheist thought. The method is designed to work no matter the perspective of the people using it... in fact, it's designed to weed out the biases and perspectives of the people using it as much as possible. It doesn't matter whether the scientific method is being employed by a theist or atheist, it is what it is, regardless of the user.
I'm kinda at a loss for what you're trying to get at.

Bluedoll wrote:
As it relates to just science, does the same apply, the search for answers switches over to the other person rather than looking for the answers as the researcher should do for themselves. If you were doing a science experiment is it not like saying I do not have the answers, so you find them for me?

Again, this is suffering from the same lack of coherence of point as the previous bit. But, I'm going to address the search for answers, and the nature of scientific research a wee bit. Science is an addative discipline, it builds upon the foundations laid in the past.

When conducting an experiment, you're not asking someone else to find answers for you... you have a question and you seek to answer it. You MUST recognize the work and findings that have come before you, and you build upon that knowledge (sometimes replacing what had been found with a new answer, sometimes bolstering what had previously been found, sometimes finding answers for lingering questions, etc). The first step in any research project is learning what is already known, and assessing that body of knowledge critically. You don't just accept that what's reported is correct, you look at their methods, results and conclusions and make sure that they weren't mistaken, or that their conclusions match the data... that the data was collected and analyzed in an appropriate manner, etc.
If you can't demonstrate that you understand what you're looking at and where the questions that you're addressing come from, you haven't demonstrated that your work should be taken seriously.

I'm not sure where "get others to find answers for you" applies.

Bluedoll wrote:
The other claim is the beaker has bubbles in it because it is acid. Prove that it is acid. The problem however for this kind of burden with religion or even just religious beliefs is the claim is coming from a completely different domain and not applicable because it is not compatable for comparison – i.e. faith based for example not scientific.

Yeah, acids are easy to test/measure; if it's >0.0000001 M H+, it's an acid. There are several good tests to measure pH. Bubbles, by the way, are in no way indicative of acidity. They could be indicative of a reaction happening within the acid with some other material, but are not a property of acids.
You say that religions are not compatible for comparison... this is patently false. There are all kinds of places where you can test the claims of religions or faith based positions... some claims can't be (currently) tested. For example, any claims of properties relating to gods or what have you that are purely supernatural are, by definition, untestable, as they don't manifest in reality and can't really be meaningfully discussed; they're entirely speculative.
Where god claims intersect with reality, for example, creation accounts, miracles, communication, souls, etc., they can absolutely be compared against what is actually out there. Once the supernatural interacts with reality, there must be a mechanism, that mechanism can be investigated and "compared".
This isn't necessarily to say that science will be involved, but, science is the best method we have to assess the nature of reality. Creation claims, for example, have universally been shown to be at odds with reality.

The idea of separate magisteria is utter non-sense. It applies in one case, and no others.

Bluedoll wrote:
In the debate world you end up with idiotic arguments occurring over and over again like – “well you can not prove God exists or does not – you need to prove creation theory or evolution. Of course that is followed by something like, “well the bible says so” which is followed by aggressive comments or insults, till finally the winner/loser gets a prize. The only prize is the opponent gets upset enough to leave the debate. Not much of a prize, not very scientific and certainly not very conclusive either way.


I've not seen any debates here actually involve the scientific method. I've seen them refer to scientific findings, or the lack of scientific findings, but none have involved the scientific method.

Facts are not science. They're not even limited to science, many fields rely upon them. History, for example, is not scientific in nature, but does require factual information to back up claims. Otherwise, you may as well accept that Joseph Smith found magic golden plates in his back yard that were deposited there by Jesus when he came to North America. Seems plausible, right?

Bluedoll wrote:
I never understood this idea of burden of proof like it was some courtroom strategy when it refers to a persons belief. I think the person can state what they wish and burdens are nothing more than what they say they are especially when you consider science. Should science even know such burdens but wants only to understand what is scientific and as the op said stay on that side of the table when it comes to the scientific method?


If you want anyone to take your claims seriously and not as simply some half-cocked BS from a crazy person, it's important to be able to communicate the reasons why they might accept them as true. This applies to a claim of any nature, why should religious belief be excluded?? What is so special about "belief" that it should be excluded from critical examination? Wouldn't any reasonable person want to believe something that is true?

Science, on the other hand, is heavily swaddled with burdens of proof. ANY claim made in science MUST have evidence to support it if it is to be taken seriously.

"I think the person can state what they wish and burdens are nothing more than what they say they are especially when you consider science."
What does this mean?



Let's make a claim! I believe have $30 in my wallet. Do you have any reason to believe it?
Let's make a religious claim! The Hindus have the religion question right, every other religion is false. Do you believe it?

What sort of evidence would you need to confirm either of these claims? On what grounds would you dismiss them?
The first is pretty easy.
The second, you might have a harder time with.

So, yeah, pretty much none of your questions about the scientific method actually had anything to do with it. You might wish to bone up on what the scientific method is; it may help get your feet under you. The wikipedia entry is an acceptable place to start.
Bluedoll
Quote:
God can't be proven not to exist by the scientific method so therefore as far as science is concerned, the existence of God is not even on the table. –dshorr

You say that religions are not compatible for comparison... this is patently false. – Bluedoll – Ankhanu

As I understand it then, I am agreeing with the op as shown above and you are not and perhaps saying atheism is scientific? You are also saying that in relation to what someone believes (anyone) if using any other method other than the science method, it is not serious. I think you are in your post associating any other method other than the scientific model to be “half-cocked BS from a crazy person”, untrue, lacking of a coherence point”? If this is what you are saying, ....
Quote:
Once the supernatural interacts with reality, there must be a mechanism, that mechanism can be investigated and "compared"- Ankhanu

What are you basing this on, what mechanism and what could it be compared to? As far as I know science has no facility for conducting any investigation in this area. All it can do is dismiss each and every claim as a hoax and make claim that the supernatural does not exist. So how can there even be a measurable mechanism? This is too is off the table?
To make this even clearer if a reputable fictional scientist Charles E Atheidom stated he was doing a scientific experiment on the supernatural world would not his associate scientists say, “too bad about poor ole Charlie going off the deep end”?
Ankhanu
You're equating skepticism and the requirement for factual information with the scientific method. They are not the same thing. The scientific method is the process by which scientists go about answering their questions about reality... it's a method, a process. When I suggested you read up on what it was, I was not being back-handed or insincere, it was a genuine suggestion.

Start here: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Here's the flow chart that that site provides to help students understand the method for their science fair experiments:


Here's the wiki on the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Another one geared towards science fair participants: http://www.sciencebob.com/sciencefair/scientificmethod.php

Catching the theme?

Evidence based reasoning and logic are not the scientific method. They're is involved, but are not, in themselves, the scientific method.

Bluedoll wrote:
What are you basing this on, what mechanism and what could it be compared to? As far as I know science has no facility for conducting any investigation in this area. All it can do is dismiss each and every claim as a hoax and make claim that the supernatural does not exist. So how can there even be a measurable mechanism? This is too is off the table?

This is based on simple reasoning... hell, it's tautology. If something interacts with something else, there must be a mechanism of interaction. Or, if two things interact, there is an interaction.

The major problem of these sorts of investigations is not that we don't know what the mechanisms are... science is all about figuring that out, and is very well equipped to make those discoveries. Rather, it's in the sporadic and temporary nature of the events. The non-repeatability is antithetical to scientific investigation. In order to make an assessment, data must be collected. If the event can't be replicated, a scientist can't really make a statement to confirm the event or its nature.

The ease of measurement of a mechanism is not important to the nature of the mechanism... sure, it's hard to measure, but difficulty in measurement does NOT infer that a mechanism is absent. It just means that it's hard to measure.

There are long-term "miracles" or what have you that last long enough to be reported AND investigated, for example, several stigmata claims. In ever case they have been shown to be false, or, at best, inconclusive.

Bluedoll wrote:
To make this even clearer if a reputable fictional scientist Charles E Atheidom stated he was doing a scientific experiment on the supernatural world would not his associate scientists say, “too bad about poor ole Charlie going off the deep end”?

Yeah, that happens. But, often enough, it's those people who've gone off the deep end who find new information... Often they're wasting their efforts, but it occasionally comes to fruition.
There are schools that attempt to investigate the supernatural. Most consider these pursuits pseudo-science at best, but some take it pretty seriously. Will something come of them? Perhaps, but probably not... but the fact is, people ARE investigating.
Watch this little blurb:
ms_j
Ankhanu wrote:


With your statement that there is no god, you now take on a burden to provide the evidence to support the claim.
With the broader atheistic claim (insufficient reason to believe), the burden of proof lay with those making claims of existence (or non-existence).
.


Hm, I was trying to say that this is a religion topic, not science one. I didn't say it so many words, so my bad. So, since I don't think it's a science thing, I, as an atheist, don't have to prove anything. Believers certainly are not proving anything. They have no evidence (actual evidence) so I don't have to ether.

Ankhanu wrote:


Personally, I've encountered relatively few atheists who would assert that there are no gods... and most of those who do are generally blindly contrary rather than rational.


Funny you said this. I actually think of atheists as rational people. At least, I think I am a rational person. That is why don't believe in God's existence. I just don't buy the idea of someone floating over us (in any way and matter) and looking and making decisions about our lives and deaths. I hope no one will get offended. I am not trying to say that believers are irrational, ergo stupid or something. No. Everybody deals with life, troubles and joy in the way that comes easiest to them.
Ankhanu
ms_j wrote:
Hm, I was trying to say that this is a religion topic, not science one. I didn't say it so many words, so my bad. So, since I don't think it's a science thing, I, as an atheist, don't have to prove anything. Believers certainly are not proving anything. They have no evidence (actual evidence) so I don't have to ether.


I agree that what you said isn't scientific. No argument there.
However, you are making a definitive claim, "there are no gods", which is the antithesis of the theist claim "there are gods". In taking that hard stance, you're just as responsible for making that claim believable as a theist is... i.e. provide the evidence, or you're simply working with conjecture/speculation.

The fact that theists don't have evidence is tangential to the point. Because they don't have evidence, we have no reason to say "yeah, that seems reasonable, I believe that"... similarly, you have no evidence for your position, therefore we have nor reason to say "yeah, that seems reasonable, I believe that" to your claim either.

Burden of proof comes from wanting to be believed. If you have no interest in others believing your claim (or even making sure your claim is correct), ignore the burden of proof. No one will reasonably take you seriously and we can all go on our merry way Razz

ms_j wrote:
Funny you said this. I actually think of atheists as rational people. At least, I think I am a rational person. That is why don't believe in God's existence. I just don't buy the idea of someone floating over us (in any way and matter) and looking and making decisions about our lives and deaths.


Nor do I.
But you're going a step further than saying "why should I believe that" to "that claim is false". It's a leap to conclusions.

Chances are, from what we know, the statement is correct... but we don't actually know it IS correct. We don't have the evidence to make that solid claim.
ms_j
Ankhanu wrote:
ms_j wrote:
Hm, I was trying to say that this is a religion topic, not science one. I didn't say it so many words, so my bad. So, since I don't think it's a science thing, I, as an atheist, don't have to prove anything. Believers certainly are not proving anything. They have no evidence (actual evidence) so I don't have to ether.


I agree that what you said isn't scientific. No argument there.
However, you are making a definitive claim, "there are no gods", which is the antithesis of the theist claim "there are gods". In taking that hard stance, you're just as responsible for making that claim believable as a theist is... i.e. provide the evidence, or you're simply working with conjecture/speculation.

The fact that theists don't have evidence is tangential to the point. Because they don't have evidence, we have no reason to say "yeah, that seems reasonable, I believe that"... similarly, you have no evidence for your position, therefore we have nor reason to say "yeah, that seems reasonable, I believe that" to your claim either.

Burden of proof comes from wanting to be believed. If you have no interest in others believing your claim (or even making sure your claim is correct), ignore the burden of proof. No one will reasonably take you seriously and we can all go on our merry way Razz

ms_j wrote:
Funny you said this. I actually think of atheists as rational people. At least, I think I am a rational person. That is why don't believe in God's existence. I just don't buy the idea of someone floating over us (in any way and matter) and looking and making decisions about our lives and deaths.


Nor do I.
But you're going a step further than saying "why should I believe that" to "that claim is false". It's a leap to conclusions.

Chances are, from what we know, the statement is correct... but we don't actually know it IS correct. We don't have the evidence to make that solid claim.


Huh, English is not my first language, so I got lost a bit in your post, but I hope I understood you correctly in the end.

Like I said earlier, I am not trying to convince believers in anything. They are free to believe what they want. And so am I. Yeas, we can all go on our marry way. That's my point.

But speaking of proof: if anybody needs to prove anything (even though I don't think anybody does) then believers do. I don't see it, I don't feel it physically etc, therefore it doesn't exist.

"Chances are, from what we know, the statement is correct... but we don't actually know it IS correct" - I don't agree. From what we know, the statement is NOT correct (if you are talking about the statement that God does exist) because of what I said above, we don't feel, see etc.
kelseymh
ms_j wrote:
But speaking of proof: if anybody needs to prove anything (even though I don't think anybody does) then believers do. I don't see it, I don't feel it physically etc, therefore it doesn't exist.


And this is not correct. You are drawing an incorrect conclusion. You don't see neutrinos, and you don't feel neutrinos physically. That does not mean they don't exist, it just means that you personally are not equipped to detect them.

If a believer makes a definitive claim that a particular god exists, and that believer wants others to agree with them, then they have the burden of proof to convince others that they are correct.

If you make the definitive claim that a particular god (or any gods) do not exist, and you want others to agree with you, then you have the burden of proof to convince others that you are correct.

By continuing repeating your definitive claim, and asserting that it is correct, then you are in fact trying to get others to agree with you. Therefore, you do have the burden of proof. Otherwise, you're just another loudmouthed crackpot.

Quote:
"Chances are, from what we know, the statement is correct... but we don't actually know it IS correct" - I don't agree. From what we know, the statement is NOT correct (if you are talking about the statement that God does exist) because of what I said above, we don't feel, see etc.


And here you go again. You have the burden to prove that. We do not know whether it is true or not! Gods, by definition, cannot have their nature investigated by scientific means. Therefore, we cannot possibly know whether or not they exist. We can test, scientifically, whether gods interact with physical reality (since science treats reality), but we cannot test their existence or nature.
ms_j
Are you sure you are an atheist?!
The only burden of proof I have right now is to convince you that I am, in fact, an atheist!
Like it or not, atheist is a word used for naming people who don't believe in God. When they invent a new word that will divide those who don't believe and go out of their way to prove it and convince others, and those who don't believe and just don't care about what others think, I will rename myself to that. Or maybe there is such word in English. There isn't one in Serbian.

"We can test, scientifically, whether gods interact with physical reality..." - what?!
kelseymh
ms_j wrote:
Are you sure you are an atheist?!


I am quite sure that I'm not. I am an agnostic. I haven't any idea whether or not God really exists, but I don't need to believe in God in order to live and demonstrate a moral life.

Quote:
The only burden of proof I have right now is to convince you that I am, in fact, an atheist!


Wrong. You are making a public claim of existence (or non-existence). As soon as you expect others to believe that your claim is correct (which is what you have been doing above), then you are responsible for providing the evidence to support that claim.

Quote:
Like it or not, atheist is a word used for naming people who don't believe in God.


In American English, we would say, "duh." That's is obivous; it is just the definition. What you have been doing in this thread, is not just stating your belief, but making a claim of fact. There is a fundamental difference between the following two statements:
Quote:
I believe that God does not exist.

Quote:
God does not exist.


The first is your opinion. The second is a claim of fact, and requires evidence of it's truth value.
Bikerman
Mike is quite correct. You are what we could call a 'strong' atheist - you assert that God does not exist. I am an atheist but I cannot make that assertion - though I believe it to be true. There is no way to conclusively rule-out God....yet (that is not to say that it will remain impossible to do so). Therefore the strong position that God definitely does not exist IS a belief. The lack of belief in God (a more general and more accurate definition of atheism) is NOT a belief.
ms_j
kelseymh wrote:


Quote:
The only burden of proof I have right now is to convince you that I am, in fact, an atheist!


Wrong. You are making a public claim of existence (or non-existence). As soon as you expect others to believe that your claim is correct (which is what you have been doing above), then you are responsible for providing the evidence to support that claim.


Uh, this is why I never engage in conversations on this subject. Why the hell did I do it now?!

Anyway, "wrong" ? I keep saying that I am not trying to convince a believer that God doesn't exist. I just do not give a fu** what others think. When they invent a word for non-believers that don't give a fu** I will rename myself. I am just trying to prove (even though I don't know why!) that I am an atheist, since I was "informed" by some of you, that I am not. How ridiculous is that?! But, I'm doing it anyway. I am not expecting others to believe my claim therefore, I don't HAVE to prove anything.

Quote:
The first is your opinion. The second is a claim of fact, and requires evidence of it's truth value.

"I believe that God doesn't exist" IS my opinion and since it's a very firm opinion, it's also a fact, as far as I'm concerned. I, personally, do not need any evidence of it's true value. If someone want's to convince me that God does exist, they need an evidence.

Overall, just because someone wrote a book long time ago, and somehow majority of people started to believe in God's existence, those that don't believe (lets call them atheists!) have a burden of proving something. It's kinda stupid.
Ankhanu
ms_j wrote:
"I believe that God doesn't exist" IS my opinion and since it's a very firm opinion, it's also a fact, as far as I'm concerned. I, personally, do not need any evidence of it's true value. If someone want's to convince me that God does exist, they need an evidence.

Overall, just because someone wrote a book long time ago, and somehow majority of people started to believe in God's existence, those that don't believe (lets call them atheists!) have a burden of proving something. It's kinda stupid.


I think the language barrier is at play here. I don't think the distinctions we're outlining are making it through.

Basically, you're taking it on faith that God doesn't exist.
That's fine and good, but it is a belief stance which would require just as much burden of proof as a theist claim. You don't have to supply the proof, of course, but, likewise, you can be expected to be afforded the same esteem as a theist making the same sort of claim. This is also fine and good.

I mean, yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right... but I can't bring forth the evidence to say that it definitely is right, so I'm going to be honest and say that I don't actually know.
Bikerman
I don't think anyone is saying you are not an atheist - that would be silly, as well as wrong.
I simply make a distinction between someone who does not believe in God, and someone who positively KNOWS that God does not exist. You can be pretty sure that God does not exist (I am), but to rule out the possibility is not currently possible, therefore I have to acknowledge that, even if I think the possibility is very remote indeed.
It is a subtle but important difference, which I might be able to illustrate with an example.
A tribe, previously unknown to the west, is discovered in the Congo. The first person to encounter them asks them if they believe in God. They look puzzled - their culture has no concept of a God.
Are they atheists? Yes. Do they assert/know that God does not exist? No - until 5 mins ago they didn't even know that the existence of God was a possibility.

I would class myself in a similar catefory to Dawkins, who says of himself that he is pretty sure, almost certain, that God does not exist. He will not, however, state categorically that this is the case, because he is a scientist and he knows that the evidence for such a claim is lacking.
There is no onus on him to prove that God does not exist, because he is not making that claim - merely that it is very very unlikely, an observation which is easy to 'prove'.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll, and others, this might be an interesting and informative watch. It's a quick overview of how journal articles are written, read and interpreted, and a little look of how critical thinking is key in judging the merits or validity of reported information. It also hints at key concepts of scientific method.

_AVG_
I think this topic has a better place in the philosophy forums but anyway, I'll give my opinion.

I feel that I am a pantheist really (although I was an atheist earlier). I have begun to believe in a cosmic order which is perfectly deterministic. Why I'm bringing this up is because this is basically what everything scientific is about: it's about finding order in nature.
Gitesh
Its a question like Egg and chicken., both sides are unable to prove their theories., In hinduism karma is given more importance and it decides the fate of the person., this religion is more close to science as it does have scientific answers to why to do some rituals and how it really helps.
Bikerman
Gitesh wrote:
Its a question like Egg and chicken., both sides are unable to prove their theories., In hinduism karma is given more importance and it decides the fate of the person., this religion is more close to science as it does have scientific answers to why to do some rituals and how it really helps.
Err, no it doesn't.
Let me say this clearly and unambiguously.
NO RELIGION is scientific.
The essence of any scientific statement is that it MUST be testable, and therefore it MUST be refutable. Hinuism makes no testable claims and is therefore not scientific. Neither is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or Scientology. If they were Scientific there would be no need for faith, since they would be testable.
Related topics
Your favourite book (official)
science vs. religion
Brain Or MIND?
Give me a HOLLA if you are a fervent agnostic!
Ignorance of Satanism
What kind of science are you into?
Another religions
A debate of religion, science, and more
Deism vs Atheism
Do Nonbelivers Go Too Hell?
Your chance to prove Astrology, scientifically!
Heaven a Scientific possibility
Define Religion?
Pantheism and Panentheism verses Religion and Atheism
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.