Rectifying atheism, without science

[Milton Platt]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

Your post is nonsensical to most atheists. Others assert there is a god, Atheists simply reject the assertion based upon lack of sufficient evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

Atheism doesn't need rectification.
I didn't believe in gods before I ever heard of the concept.
I was an atheist before I learned any science.
How?
There was simply no reason to believe in the outlandish unverifiable
stories about God (in my childhood's very Xian neighborhood.
Learning science was interesting & useful, but unnecessary to being
an atheist.

Is it "reactionary" to refuse to accept something which sounds utterly bonkers?
Would you be if I offered you some cheap oceanfront property in Revoltistan?

 

[suncowiam]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

Never met God. Kind of easy right? It's like asking why do I not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Doesn't take science to make these kinds of choices and yes, it's still a choice at best. So what...

 

[idav]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

Correct, belief based on lack of evidence is not science.

 

[Milton Platt]

Atheism doesn't need rectification.
I didn't believe in gods before I ever heard of the concept.
I was an atheist before I learned any science.
How?
There was simply no reason to believe in the outlandish unverifiable
stories about God (in my childhood's very Xian neighborhood.
Learning science was interesting & useful, but unnecessary to being
an atheist.

Is it "reactionary" to refuse to accept something which sounds utterly bonkers?
Would you be if I offered you some cheap oceanfront property in Revoltistan?

I have been just waiting for an opportunity to get in on a ground floor opportunity like that! Do you have anything that already has a suspension bridge on it?

 

[sayak83]

Everything came from nothing, or something that we don't know what it is, but has some sort of 'cause' etc, actually seems outlandish to many people. If not completely unbelievable.

How about eternally existing universe? There is nothing in current cosmology that indicates that the Big Bang event is an absolute beginning of any sort and is not the beginning of expansion of a pre-existing form of cosmos.

 

[sayak83]

I'm not a big bang theory proponent. My advice to people who are really attached to the idea, go for mini-bangs, instead

Big Bang is scientifically very well established.

 

[McBell]

Everything came from nothing, or something that we don't know what it is, but has some sort of 'cause' etc, actually seems outlandish to many people. If not completely unbelievable.

Sweet.
So what do you believe caused god?

 

[Shad]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science,

The oldest objections to arguments for God are based on philosophy. People do use science to dismiss specific religions which contain stories that are ahistorical but are treated as if history by believers.

/because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe.

Actually physicists and quantum physicists have proposed models regarding each.

Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism?

It is not an asserted position. It is a rejection of an asserted position that God exists.

It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.

It is a rejection of a claim as the arguments for God have major issues.

A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

No it is a position since it is a rejection of a claim

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

I do not need to as my atheism has none of the issues you brought up.

 

[Willamena]

Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism?

It goes like, "There's nothing about this 'god' that rings true."

 

[McBell]

Self created.

There you go.
The universe is self created.
Just like your god.

 

[sayak83]

Great. These are your problems; perhaps you can start a thread on that.

What is supposed to be the problem again? That the Big Bang happened is very well established. But nothing in the theory or the observations indicate at all that it was the beginning of anything. There is a difference between "the universe started to expand at the Big Bang (the correct interpretation)" and "the universe began at the Big Bang (popular misconception)".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Okay sure I understand. Just like my a-naturalism is not a belief, I just lack belief in naturalism.

(and default to the obvious alternative)

If you can throw a blanket over 'theism' and understand it in a holistic sense as some sort of answer to anything, you're a better man than me.

If you go beyond that and put specific claims on God's nature/purpose, etc, then you are not merely on the flip side of atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have been just waiting for an opportunity to get in on a ground floor opportunity like that! Do you have anything that already has a suspension bridge on it?

We're a little backward.
No suspension bridges.
Not even any real bridges.
But we do have some crude dirt paths.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everything came from nothing, or something that we don't know what it is, but has some sort of 'cause' etc, actually seems outlandish to many people. If not completely unbelievable.

I plead total ignorance about origins.
But I'm really sure we're not on the back of a giant turtle.

 

[dgirl1986]

Science only looks to observe the natural world and to learn from the observable...a very simplified overview but it works.

Science and atheism do not always go hand in hand, despite popular opinion. There are atheists who believe in the supernatural, for example, despite there being no evidence for it existing.

 

[Willamena]

Science and atheism do not always go hand in hand, despite popular opinion.

I would say never, but perhaps that's just me.

 

[Willamena]

I plead total ignorance about origins.
But I'm really sure we're not on the back of a giant turtle.

/me We've got'em all fooled, the turtle and I. (Ooh! That would make a good album title.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you can throw a blanket over 'theism' and understand it in a holistic sense as some sort of answer to anything, you're a better man than me.

If you go beyond that and put specific claims on God's nature/purpose, etc, then you are not merely on the flip side of atheism.

I make no claim, I have faith in God's nature, purpose- as the less probable explanation than: nature only, without purpose.

 

[Willamena]

Is rectifying like recycling?