Science and atheism inconsistent?

[ecco]

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

That seems to be your standard reply when you want to avoid addressing something.

It's nothing new. We see it all the time.

 

[viole]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

Who on earth is Marcelo Gleiser? I hear he won the Templeton prize, which is not exactly what I would be proud of.

I wonder what he thinks about Bob the invisible turtle. Bob is the creator of the Universe, and He created the Universe by performing a huge fart that can be identified with the Big Bang.

I am sure that to say that the Universe did not definitely originate from Bob’s fart is also inconsistent with science. And I am sure he would agree with that.

And?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

Wide, positive atheism, the view that there are no gods whatsoever, might appear to be the most difficult atheistic thesis to defend, but ontological naturalists have responded that the case for no gods is parallel to the case for no elves, pixies, dwarves, fairies, goblins, or other creates. A decisive proof against every possible supernatural being is not necessary for the conclusion that none of them are real to be justified. The ontological naturalist atheist believes that once we have devoted sufficient investigation into enough particular cases and the general considerations about natural laws, magic, and supernatural entities, it becomes reasonable to conclude that the whole enterprise is an explanatory dead end for figuring out what sort of things there are in the world.

Whereas I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above, I find that it uses a lot of big words and is drawn out for the sake of trying to sound profound.

I would offer:

Rational people, including but not limited to atheists, do not find it necessary to repeatedly prove that it is nonsensical to resort to the supernatural to explain nature.​

 

[ecco]

Doesn’t seem incoherent. I thought it was straightforward. Basically, atheism is an absolute statement whereas science rarely if ever makes such statements.

Science doesn't say the Grand Canyon was not carved by The Great Flood?
Science doesn't say the earth is not 6000 years old?
Science doesn't say the earth is not flat?

Science does say the age of the universe is 13.772 billion years.
Science does say the scablands are the result of ice dams forming and breaching.
Science does say man is the result of Evolution.

It seems science makes absolute statements all the time.

 

[ecco]

Why do believers avoid stating that, "Atheist don't believe in God, because there is absolutely no objective evidence to support any such belief"?

Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that God, god, gods are nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings.

 

[ecco]

I'm not going to address what you think I probably believe.

Nice duck and dodge.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did you want to address any of the points I've raised? Would you like to explain why Atheists do not believe in the existence of God(s)? Maybe you think Atheists hate God, and love science more? Maybe you think that Atheists do not have the same level of blind faith as you do? Maybe you think that God only speaks to those that believe in him. Maybe you believe that God chooses only those that will join Him in heaven. These are just some of the reasons I have heard, including profound ignorance. What is your reason?

I won't bother asking for any evidence to support anything out of your mouth, since we both know where that will end.

Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe ah . . . and maybe . . .

You most be answering someone else, but not anything I posted.

 

[shunyadragon]

Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that God, god, gods are nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings.

There is no specific objective verifiable evidence that could lead to these conclusions as far as science goes, but yes the God(s) of ancient scripture, like the Bible interpreted literally, are terribly unlikely based on the evidence of science, history and archaeology.

 

[ecco]

i didn't single out atheism as anti-scientific. i stated having any kind of belief/disbelief; without research, testing the belief/disbelief, is anti-scientific.

Are you presuming that people hold positions of belief/disbelief without research, testing the belief/disbelief?

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you presuming that people hold positions of belief/disbelief without research, testing the belief/disbelief?

Yes, many in fact do, due to their desire of sense of community and belonging particularly their cultural and familiar heritage.

 

[ecco]

Regarding Dr. Gleiser ‘s view, his statement about atheistic stand “I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.', suggests that he is not conflating.

He may not be conflating, but he is either lying or ignorant.

You do know that, don't you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Whereas I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above, I find that it uses a lot of big words and is drawn out for the sake of trying to sound profound.

I would offer:

Rational people, including but not limited to atheists, do not find it necessary to repeatedly prove that it is nonsensical to resort to the supernatural to explain nature.​

Big words? Nothing here beyond the advanced high school level.

 

[shunyadragon]

He may not be conflating, but he is either lying or ignorant.

. . . or have a religious agenda.

 

[ecco]

Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that God, god, gods are nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings.

There is no specific objective verifiable evidence that could lead to these conclusions as far as science goes, but yes the God(s) of ancient scripture, like the Bible interpreted literally, are terribly unlikely based on the evidence of science, history and archaeology.

All that sounds very self-contradictory. Are you suggesting that gods of modern scripture, like the writings of Marshall Applewhite are likely?

 

[atanu]

Is anyone here an atheist towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Therefore, are you inconsistent with science?

Well. Your answer is probably there in post 382.

 

[shunyadragon]

All that sounds very self-contradictory. Are you suggesting that gods of modern scripture, like the writings of Marshall Applewhite are likely?

No, I am referring to only the miracle working hands on God(s) of ancient scripture interpreted in some way literally as many if not most Christians do at present.

 

[ecco]

Are you presuming that people hold positions of belief/disbelief without research, testing the belief/disbelief?

Yes, many in fact do, due to their desire of sense of community and belonging particularly their cultural and familiar heritage.

And I agree. Now, would you say that many atheists came to their belief without research and testing the belief/disbelief?
Would you say that many atheists came to their belief due to their desire for sense of community and belonging particularly their cultural and familiar heritage?

Which approach would be more rational?

 

[ecco]

Big words? Nothing here beyond the advanced high school level.

Since you only commented on the "big words" I assume you agree it was: "drawn out for the sake of trying to sound profound."

 

[ecco]

↑
He may not be conflating, but he is either lying or ignorant.
. . . or have a religious agenda.

. . . or have a religious agenda.

Ahh, lyin' for Jesus.

 

[ecco]

No, I am referring to only the miracle working hands on God(s) of ancient scripture interpreted in some way literally as many if not most Christians do at present.

Very confusing and, at this point, droppable.