Atheism is not scientific

[Mock Turtle]

I know that false teachings about the earth and it's resources have been taught by some Christian groups and that should not be seen as the Biblical teaching.
The Bible does teach that humans are top dogs on earth (as we are) and in charge of looking after the place.

No we are not 'top dogs' by any means. We happen to have very many more abilities than most other species, that is obvious. It is supreme arrogance to think we are in charge of this planet and all other life on it. We are default carers in many ways because we have spread so widely, but actually we are making rather a mess at the moment, mainly due to our previous lack of knowledge and our inabilities to form a large enough grouping - all humankind - so as to deal with the issues.

Of course God is over all and so humans are not the peak of life.
The atheist position sounds a bit self centred.
It is true that the Bible teaching does teach that things will be restored however so trusting God enables us to be at peace, sort of, even when we see the destruction of the planet by people who don't seem to care much about anything except their own wealth even though they are rich already.
Governments can tend to follow them also, wanting to be re-elected by keeping us prosperous.

For many of us, religions are part of the problem - their inability to avoid conflict towards other religions and those without such - and of course politics. How do you see humankind becoming one cohesive movement?

 

[ecco]

The Bible does teach that humans are top dogs on earth

Top dogs indeed.

The dinosaurs were here a lot longer than humans have been here.
Roaches were here even longer.

Top dogs? Humans? Ask me again in a couple of million years.

 

[Brian2]

No we are not 'top dogs' by any means. We happen to have very many more abilities than most other species, that is obvious. It is supreme arrogance to think we are in charge of this planet and all other life on it. We are default carers in many ways because we have spread so widely, but actually we are making rather a mess at the moment, mainly due to our previous lack of knowledge and our inabilities to form a large enough grouping - all humankind - so as to deal with the issues.

Humanity is the species that rule the earth, that is the truth.

For many of us, religions are part of the problem - their inability to avoid conflict towards other religions and those without such - and of course politics. How do you see humankind becoming one cohesive movement?

I don't see the complete cohesion of humankind in the future. Catastrophies seem to bring us together a bit and uniting to overcome them. Maybe humanity will unite in wanting to get rid of superstitions and stick to science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Humanity is the species that rule the earth, that is the truth.

Your rule equals what I see as dominance, and not necessarily justified by being so. Just as you might query any particular religious belief being so - especially one you are not aligned with. Like to see a world dominated by Islam, for example?

I don't see the complete cohesion of humankind in the future. Catastrophies seem to bring us together a bit and uniting to overcome them. Maybe humanity will unite in wanting to get rid of superstitions and stick to science.

Neither do I, simply because there are more unthinking, or less than rational, people than there are those that are such.

 

[Audie]

Neither atheism nor belief have anything to do with science. Both are unprovable philosophical stances. Science is all about what can be proven by experimentation.

Would you consider abatboyism or achupacaraism to be philosophical
stances?
Kind of like hyper - overinterpreting or something.

It is scientifically reasonable to
believe in the existence of unknown
insects in the Congo, or unknown deep
sea fish.
Or disbelieve reports of living dinosaurs
in the Congo.
Said Dino, or chupacabra would not be
believed in by anyone who needs evidence
that something could exist, which is kinda
like the scientifically way of thinking.

God- belief otoh is about faith in something
about which no information exists, no logical
reason can be given that it might exist, and
there can be no reasonable reason to think
there ever will be.
"Philosophy" is a pretty fancy term for blind
faith in fantasy.

Atheism and theism are about as far from
being two sides of same coin as one can get.

Science is NOT, btw, all or in any part about
what can be proven by experimentation.

 

[Audie]

Atheism is a world view. As such is not a scientific position, any more than religious belief is. Science takes no position on the issue, as it does not pertain to the study of nature.

Abatboyism is a world view too?

 

[Audie]

How? Did science do a study on it and prove it? What year? Who were the scientists? Who peer reviewed it? What were its basic findings? Where did they find it too? On one of the branches of the philosophy bush?

Goodness, another who thinks science does proof.

 

[Audie]

But what is the worth of that, what is the use? It's like a colour-blind person saying that there are no colours because he cannot see any.

Really?
Isn't it more like if nobody can see colour?

 

[Windwalker]

Goodness, another who thinks science does proof.

I don't believe that. I think you leap to conclusions. I know what science does and does not claim.

I was responding to the claim that atheism is scientific. Do you believe that claim? Can you point to the scientific research on atheism they've done? Or is that simply a statement of faith, with a belief system claiming science affirms it, just like any religious group that claims their faith is supported by the Bible? Do you see a difference here? I don't. It's just another belief claiming a respected external authority supports them to give themselves credibility. That's nothing new in the world.

Atheism is a philosophy. It's not science. Are you another who believes it is? Goodness....

 

[Audie]

I don't believe that. I think you leap to conclusions. I know what science does and does not claim.

I was responding to the claim that atheism is scientific. Do you believe that claim? Can you point to the scientific research on atheism they've done? Or is that simply a statement of faith, with a belief system claiming science affirms it, just like any religious group that claims their faith is supported by the Bible? Do you see a difference here? I don't. It's just another belief claiming a respected external authority supports them to give themselves credibility. That's nothing new in the world.

Atheism is a philosophy. It's not science. Are you another who believes it is? Goodness....

Hardly a leap nor am I alone seeing how it
looked. But terrif if you don't need to
be told science doesn't do proof.

Atheism is not scientific as such, but
I did describe how it is evidence based,
unlike blind god-belief which is about as
opposite to science as one could get.
In fact it's a high virtue to just believe
no matter what.

If you think that not believing in "god",
or, ftm flying garbage men is a philosophy,
you've set an awful low bar.

But suture self, as the tele- surgeon would say.

 

[sun rise]

Would you consider abatboyism or achupacaraism to be philosophical
stances?

Google can't find those words so you need to define them with a link to what they are.

 

[Audie]

Google can't find those words so you need to define them with a link to what they are.

The English language is not big enough
for me so I must frequently add to it.

Batboy is the base word to
which I added "a" and "-ism".
Means a non belief in Batboy.

Likewise with "chupacabra"
tho I see this tablet treacherously
spelled it rong.

 

[sun rise]

The English language is not big enough
for me so I must frequently add to it.

Batboy is the base word to
which I added "a" and "-ism".
Means a non belief in Batboy.

Likewise with "chupacabra"
tho I see this tablet treacherously
spelled it rong.

Based on that, those two words are irrelevant to philosophical stances unless you want to introduce treeism, toiletpaperism, checkbookism and hearingaidism (and other meaningless words) and claim that everything is about philosophy.

 

[Audie]

Based on that, those two words are irrelevant to philosophical stances unless you want to introduce treeism, toiletpaperism, checkbookism and hearingaidism (and other meaningless words) and claim that everything is about philosophy.

Yup
But it's is staunchly claimed that
atheism is a philosophy

 

[Windwalker]

Hardly a leap nor am I alone seeing how it
looked.

How it looked only because you lept without looking. How long have you had discussions with me and know that I accept modern science and embrace the theory of evolution and all of that? I understand how science works. Which is why I balked at the suggestion that atheism and science are essentially one and the same, or that science affirms atheism. Ridiculous. It also doesn't affirm theism, and shame on all of those who try to make that so.

Atheism is not scientific as such, but
I did describe how it is evidence based,
unlike blind god-belief which is about as
opposite to science as one could get.
In fact it's a high virtue to just believe
no matter what.

To "believe no matter what" is not a high virtue at all. Nor is it what faith is supposed to be about. That's no more faith, than saying science is about God. Science is not about the whole grand picture. So you should not compare the two. Atheism is as much about the whole grand picture as theism is. The second you put "God" into the picture, that's what you're dealing with. Science just looks at the mechanics. Not the philosophy of it all. That is at least in its modern incarnation.

If you think that not believing in "god",
or, ftm flying garbage men is a philosophy,
you've set an awful low bar.

If you touch upon anything that deals with the Absolutes of reality, i.e, "There is a God/There is not a God", that's not science. That's philosophy. That is the only bar. And that's fine. If the question is about the absolute nature of reality, pro or con, that is philosophy. Philosophy, if you talk about it, faith if you believe it.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If atheism is not scientific then what about empiricism? Empiricism is an element of both atheism and science.

 

[sun rise]

Yup
But it's is staunchly claimed that
atheism is a philosophy

Go argue with philosophers and others The Philosophy of Atheism | Encyclopedia.com

Emma Goldman (1869–1940) is remembered as one of the most outspoken American atheists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. She rejected belief in such religious ideas as heaven, hell, sin, and other principles, and she outlined her views in a 1916 essay called "The Philosophy of Atheism.

And book authors https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430

As for me, when I'm asked to choose between an anonymous person on the internet and a body of work by philosophers and others, I'll reject the anonymous internet poster in favor of the vast majority.

 

[Audie]

Go argue with philosophers and others The Philosophy of Atheism | Encyclopedia.com

Emma Goldman (1869–1940) is remembered as one of the most outspoken American atheists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. She rejected belief in such religious ideas as heaven, hell, sin, and other principles, and she outlined her views in a 1916 essay called "The Philosophy of Atheism.

And book authors https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430

As for me, when I'm asked to choose between an anonymous person on the internet and a body of work by philosophers and others, I'll reject the anonymous internet poster in favor of the vast majority.

The vast majority is it?

In the event, you must now include
Treeism and atreeism as philosophical
whatevers.
For the most part Philosophy is just tiresome nonsense
pushed by people oddly lacking in social skills.

 

[Audie]

How it looked only because you lept without looking. How long have you had discussions with me and know that I accept modern science and embrace the theory of evolution and all of that? I understand how science works. Which is why I balked at the suggestion that atheism and science are essentially one and the same, or that science affirms atheism. Ridiculous. It also doesn't affirm theism, and shame on all of those who try to make that so.


To "believe no matter what" is not a high virtue at all. Nor is it what faith is supposed to be about. That's no more faith, than saying science is about God. Science is not about the whole grand picture. So you should not compare the two. Atheism is as much about the whole grand picture as theism is. The second you put "God" into the picture, that's what you're dealing with. Science just looks at the mechanics. Not the philosophy of it all. That is at least in its modern incarnation.


If you touch upon anything that deals with the Absolutes of reality, i.e, "There is a God/There is not a God", that's not science. That's philosophy. That is the only bar. And that's fine. If the question is about the absolute nature of reality, pro or con, that is philosophy. Philosophy, if you talk about it, faith if you believe it.

Then say what you mean ifn ya don't want
to be taken for a proof -in -sciencer.

Of course faith is a highest virtue in
Christianity. It's what Job is about.
Mustard seeds. No evidence,
that's blind faith.

Now that we talked about it, "aflyinggarbagemanism" is philosophy.
Their existence would have profound implications re
the whole nature of reality.

Low bar.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Go argue with philosophers and others The Philosophy of Atheism | Encyclopedia.com

Emma Goldman (1869–1940) is remembered as one of the most outspoken American atheists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. She rejected belief in such religious ideas as heaven, hell, sin, and other principles, and she outlined her views in a 1916 essay called "The Philosophy of Atheism.

And book authors https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430

As for me, when I'm asked to choose between an anonymous person on the internet and a body of work by philosophers and others, I'll reject the anonymous internet poster in favor of the vast majority.

I'd probably reject them all if I didn't agree with them, and being an author gives one no more privilege than any other.