Science and atheism inconsistent?

[ecco]

What you are looking at are the mythical, religious, iconic, and otherwise imagined representations of the general concept referred to by we humans as "God".

You failed to address the following...

You probably believe that there is ample evidence to conclude that Zeus is not a god, but rather a construct of the people of ancient Greece. You probably make the same conclusion about his parents Cronus and Rhea. How about Mbombo or Ababinili? Shiva? Allah?

Yet, when we use this same evidence to dismiss your god, you say we have no evidence. It smells a little like hypocrisy.

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

I am not interested in local colloquial definitions that suite american sensibilities. I quoted from the internationally accepted Oxford English Dictionary. Other international dictionaries provide similar definitions.

No, proof is factual, not a figment of the mind. You appear to be confusing proof with faith.

Again no, faith us not proof but you are most welcome to your faith.

I understand if you don't get it. It's ok, no worries

 

[ChristineM]

I understand if you don't get it. It's ok, no worries

Oh i got it as i child i grew up

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

"Accepted as proof" is not the same thing as "proved". Many people have found the evidence for a flat earth compelling and accept that a flat earth is proved.

So, it's rather meaningless, isn't it.

I see my post went right over your head. It's ok, no worries

 

[charlie sc]

There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God(Yahweh of the Bible)

What evidence is that?

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

Simplicity of general definitions are questionable and vague layman use when applied to science and logic. The definition for evidence you provided is subject to much misuse by personal preference by layman. I prefer to use objective verifiable evidence to refer to a more useful meaningful definition that cannot be confused. Proof in these discussions refer to how it is applied to math and logic, and avoid layman generalisations.

I speak English. I use a dictionary that defines words that I speak in English. You can use what you want and define terms as you wish, that's your prerogative. As for me, I use what I use

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

What evidence is that?

Evidence for God isn't the point of my post. The point was people are misunderstanding the definition of evidence. But I'd gladly post my evidence in a thread with that as the topic

 

[charlie sc]

Evidence for God isn't the point of my post. The point was people are misunderstanding the definition of evidence

Please, forgive me.

But I'd gladly post my evidence in a thread with that as the topic

This sounds wonderful. I've been waiting for strong evidence so that I can stop being such a depressing atheist

 

[shunyadragon]

I speak English. I use a dictionary that defines words that I speak in English. You can use what you want and define terms as you wish, that's your prerogative. As for me, I use what I use

Nonetheless you are being difficult using layman terms when the discussion involves science and logic. The discussion is science consistent with atheism. If you wish to discuss the issue of Science in the subject of the thread, science has no concept of proof.

The evidence you provided is subject to much misuse by personal preference by layman. I prefer to use objective verifiable evidence to refer to a more useful meaningful definition that cannot be confused. Proof in these discussions refer to how it is applied to math and logic, and avoid layman generalisations.

 

[shunyadragon]

The misrepresentations were in your assumption that atheism implies methodological naturalism.

... that and the nonsensical term "belief in atheism."

Your misquoting me Ontological Naturalism implies atheism. Methodological Naturalism is foundation of science that represents the basis for the knowledge and belief in Ontological Naturalism.

 

[Fool]

I guess technically, but pragmatically, reasonably, and practically saying "belief" tends to require it be narrowed down to something more specific for productive discourse. Especially since not everyone has a belief on the same things. Saying "belief" is about as broad as saying "soda."

broad or narrow a rose by any other name is still the same.

But atheism isn't a belief system.

but atheists have belief systems

 

[charlie sc]

but atheists have belief systems

That are?

 

[Bird123]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

This is a two edge sword. You must not leave out the other half. Science considers all possibilities. While science does not justify non-beliefs, they do not believe blindly either.

Must not one who wants to Discover the Real Truth be open to All possibilities? On the other hand, how many are really seeking Truth??

 

[shunyadragon]

That are?

atheism, Buddhist atheism, ie Zen, and at least forms of Pantheism.

 

[charlie sc]

atheism, Buddhist atheism, ie Zen, and at least forms of Pantheism.

I know that atheism is a belief but he said system of beliefs(plural). Therefore, I took that as ideology.

Atheism is not an ideology. If you become an atheist, you don't automatically become a Buddhist or a pantheist, nor if you remove Buddhism or Pantheism does it change atheism in any manner
So, can you explain to me how atheism, by itself, is an ideology?

Perhaps, we're taking past each other and you're describing what you can possibly become if you're an atheist. Yes, I think that's what you mean. Right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

but atheists have belief systems

So?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your misquoting me Ontological Naturalism implies atheism.

My mistake - ontological naturalism. Regardless, atheism does not imply any sort of naturalism.

Any worldview that does not include any gods is an atheist worldview, whether it's a "naturalistic" worldview or not.

 

[gnostic]

The flaw of atheism is not what the atheist chooses to believe about the existence of gods. It's choosing to believe it without evidence, reason, or purpose. Theism lacks evidence, but it at least can offer a positive purpose. And agnosticism lack evidence, but it at least can claim honest skepticism, with an open mind. But atheism can claim none of these. It fails at every criteria.

Of which none of these, have anything to do with science.

Atheism, theism and agnosticism are not science, PERIOD.

They are each a different position in theology, relating to the existence or nonexistence of any deity...so none of them are positions in science.

Science is a tool of acquiring knowledge through observations and experiments - hence the knowledge will -

(A) either be tested false and therefore the hypothesis is improbable and refuted,

(B) or be tested true and therefore have the probability of being verified and validated the hypothesis.​

There is a third possible outcome or (C), where there are no evidences whatsoever, good or bad, hence “absence of evidences”. With the absence of evidences result, the hypothesis should be treated the same as false, therefore refuted and should be discarded, like point (A).

Creationism (including the Intelligent Design BS) frequently falls under the (C) category, and be branded as pseudoscience and should be treated as being no better than fables and fairytale.

Creationism, like theism, atheism and agnosticism, has nothing to do with science.,

 

[shunyadragon]

My mistake - ontological naturalism. Regardless, atheism does not imply any sort of naturalism.

Any worldview that does not include any gods is an atheist worldview, whether it's a "naturalistic" worldview or not.

Based on this response I believe it is a disagreement and not a misrepresentation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Based on this response I believe it is a disagreement and not a misrepresentation.

So you really do think that all atheists are materialists?