Is Atheism science?

[Shushersbedamned]

Your opinion is noted and considered that of someone without the experience to evaluate the situation. Fyi, I don't get emotional about not collecting stamps either.

That especially is an emotional matter!

 

[ChristineM]

That especially is an emotional matter!

Not collecting stamps? Wow, little minds eh?

Continue trying to push buttons, won't do you any good, far better have tried and failed. But have fun whatever you do.

 

[Valjean]

No atheism is based on emotional factors.

How so? What factors would thise be?

It seems to me it's the theists who tend to be emotionally invested in their God beliefs. Most atheists never give the subject a thought till they're confronted with someone spouting theology.

It seems to me that there's an inverse relationship between emotional investment and evidence.
I firmly believe there's a huge Ferris wheel in London, on the banks of the Thames, but I'm not emotionally invested in this belief, and disbelievers don't vex me. I don't need emotional investment when I have clear evidence.
The emotional fervor and hostility that accompany threats to religious faith, to me, evidence a dearth of evidence.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it is not science and lacks scientific proof. I also believe science is not atheism.

 

[Muffled]

Atheism is definitely NOT a science. I cannot actually imagine any atheism professing it was such. If anything, it is more of an art form. (We try to come up with better answers than the pablum given to us by theists.)

I believe that all comes out of your imagination and the ability to ignore the validity of our answers.

 

[Muffled]

Atheism is a conclusion to one question.

Science is a method of observation and experimentation to gather data and make conclusions about it.

An atheist may say science contributes to their atheism when positive claims of theistic religions don't match scientific conclusions (scriptural literalism, global flood, evolution denial) but really that tends to be a pretty narrow group of theists which it impacts (a small section of Abrahamics) and has little to do with theism in general. Since most theists don't make a science contradictory claims about their theism I would say science has very little to do with atheism.

I believe then that the reasoning is not proper since the conclusion is invalid.

I believe this is a concept that science is like God and is always right but the truth is that what passes for science often is in error or is inconclusive..

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I believe then that the reasoning is not proper since the conclusion is invalid.

I believe this is a concept that science is like God and is always right but the truth is that what passes for science often is in error or is inconclusive..

I believe it's poor reasoning to start with a conclusion and try to find reasons that fit that conclusion. So far, that has been my observation of direct evidence claims for god(s)

I do not treat science like a God, but like a tool for gathering information. A tool can be misused, but science relies on skepticism and re-evaluating it's own conclusions, and that reduces inaccuracy a great deal.

But I'm not interested in spending time on this post debating individual science vs creationism topics because that's not what this thread is about.

 

[YmirGF]

I believe that all comes out of your imagination and the ability to ignore the validity of our answers.

My deepest aplogies @Muffled
I keep forgetting that the theistic answers are supposedly valid. But, be that as it may, most times, said "valid" answers are not particularly good answers. Jus' sayin'...

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

If Atheism is not a belief/faith, does it make it science?
Regards

That's like asking if you are not right-handed, does that make you a turtle? Just because two words can be stringed togetherin a sentence does not mean that the sentence is meaningful.

 

[paarsurrey]

That's like asking if you are not right-handed, does that make you a turtle? Just because two words can be stringed togetherin a sentence does not mean that the sentence is meaningful.

So, does one mean that Atheism and its people have got nothing to do with science? Right, please?
Regards

 

[ChristineM]

So, does one mean that Atheism and its people have got nothing to do with science? Right, please?
Regards

How many times ???



Atheism ; disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Where is science mentioned in that definition?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

So, does one mean that Atheism and its people have got nothing to do with science? Right, please?
Regards

Correct.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If Atheism is not a belief/faith, does it make it science?

No. Scientists make science, and scientists are theists and atheists.

 

[Milton Platt]

If Atheism is not a belief/faith, does it make it science?
Regards

_____________
Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?
Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "
With new observations comes a new belief
It is very natural to believe

That is a ridiculous question. How can a lack of belief in a proposition be a science?

 

[ChurchofPhysics]

Atheism is definitely NOT a science. I cannot actually imagine any atheism professing it was such. If anything, it is more of an art form. (We try to come up with better answers than the pablum given to us by theists.)

Origin of the universe is a question for science. For example, Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing" makes a physics claim that no God is needed. So that is a scientific claim and theory that no God is needed (and that God was invented by beings that came to exist in the universe). On the other hand the claim that Intelligence Created the Universe -- The God Theory -- could also be a scientific fact and factually true. So arguably these are two competing scientific theories regarding origin of the universe: atheism and theism.

 

[Valjean]

Origin of the universe is a question for science. For example, Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing" makes a physics claim that no God is needed. So that is a scientific claim and theory that no God is needed (and that God was invented by beings that came to exist in the universe). On the other hand the claim that Intelligence Created the Universe -- The God Theory -- could also be a scientific fact and factually true. So arguably these are two competing scientific theories regarding origin of the universe: atheism and theism.

"No God is needed" is not a theory. It's an observation.

 

[ChurchofPhysics]

"No God is needed" is not a theory. It's an observation.

It cannot be an observation unless you have or can "observe" it. We cannot "observe" that "No God is needed", we can make a hypothesis or theory that universe does not need a God to come into existence.
The example such as the "A Universe from Nothing" book I mentioned saying "No God is needed" is a physics theory about origin of universe.

 

[paarsurrey]

It cannot be an observation unless you have or can "observe" it. We cannot "observe" that "No God is needed", we can make a hypothesis or theory that universe does not need a God to come into existence.
The example such as the "A Universe from Nothing" book I mentioned saying "No God is needed" is a physics theory about origin of universe.

"No God is needed"
It is not an observation of science, just an uttering off the cuff. Right,please?
Regards

 

[ChurchofPhysics]

"No God is needed"
It is not an observation of science, just an uttering off the cuff. Right,please?
Regards

The theist claim is that the existence of the universe needs an explanation with God being a possible explanation. That is The God Theory and it is a science theory since it provides an explanation for the cause and existence of the observed universe. Atheists feel a need to counter that with a science theory that suggests a "Universe from Nothing" and this is not "just an uttering of the cuff" because science writers are attempting rational explanations why that "No God is needed" alternative is more likely than The God Theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theist claim is that the existence of the universe needs an explanation with God being a possible explanation. That is The God Theory and it is a science theory since it provides an explanation for the cause and existence of the observed universe. Atheists feel a need to counter that with a science theory that suggests a "Universe from Nothing" and this is not "just an uttering of the cuff" because science writers are attempting rational explanations why that "No God is needed" alternative is more likely than The God Theory.

"The God Theory" is not a scientific theory. What reasonable test could possibly refute it? Historically " God did it" has failed as an explanation.