Science and atheism inconsistent?

[ecco]

Claiming a god does exist or a god doesn't exist are both claims made on faith because neither can be shown.

When it comes to god(s) existing or not existing, the best answer is we don't know. Arguing beyond that is nothing more than bias or personal choice.

In your humble opinion.

If it can't be proven one way or the other, no evidence, there is nothing left to argue about except bias and personal choice.

Science, and indeed logic, is not about "prove". It is about "evidence". You rolled both into one sentence.

I will grant that I cannot prove that God does not exist. Likewise, I cannot prove that Zeus and Odin did not exist.

However, there is abundant evidence to support the logical conclusion that god, gods, God are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[ecco]

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.

But if you ask a scientist he or she will always say it’s a hypothesis or theory and/or that they are free to change the conclusion with the introduction of new evidence.

Don’t get me wrong. Many of the things you listed are 99.999% true, but the reality is science doesn’t usually deal in absolutes.

I don't think many scientists would refer to the things I listed as hypothesis or theory. I don't think most biologists would refer to the Theory of Evolution as a hypothesis or theory.

It would be more accurate to state that science almost never uses the term "proved". If anything, they would use the term "overwhelming evidence".

Likewise for atheism. I have never heard an atheist say he has proven there is no god, gods, God. However, as with science, there is overwhelming evidence that god, gods, God are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

It’s open minded and willing to accept new evidence and evolve it’s conclusions accordingly.

Perhaps I'm reading to much into your comment, but are you implying that atheists are not open-minded and willing to accept new evidence and evolve our conclusions accordingly?

If so, I would be glad to address that.

 

[ecco]

Actually, atheism is really very defensible, provided that one makes only the claim that there is, so far, no evidence that remotely suggests the existence of any deity active in the world, but if such evidence were produced, my attitude would change.

I notice you hail as an atheist... so what is a "less wimpy" approach in your opinion?

My "wimpy" assertion was addressed at:

provided that one makes only the claim that there is, so far, no evidence that remotely suggests the existence of any deity​

The lack of evidence for the existence of deities is only half of the argument. More important, at least to me, is the vast amount of evidence that god, gods, God are nothing more than the creatons of man's imaginings just like fairies, pixies, Spiderman and The Hulk.

Denying evidence of God (if it were actually to be presented) and still asserting either that God doesn't exist, or that you still don't believe? If the evidence were entirely compelling, then yours would end up being the wimpy stance. Because you'd be wrong.

When someone presents compelling evidence that the bite of a radioactive spider can give a human the ability to spin webs and use them to jump from building to building I will admit I was wrong to believe that Spiderman was just the creation of Stan Lee's fertile mind.

Now... don't get me wrong... I am the absolute last person to even remotely believe that theists may somehow/someday produce actual evidence of God's existence, and I am entirely convinced right now that no god of any kind exists. But if somehow evidence of an undeniable nature were presented, and it were inter-subjectively verifiable, reproducible, testable, etc. well... then to continue to deny at that point would make one a fool.

When someone presents evidence of an undeniable nature that the bite of a radioactive spider can give a human the ability to spin webs and use them to jump from building to building I will admit I was wrong to believe that Spiderman was just the creation of Stan Lee's fertile mind.

 

[PureX]

If Honda made all the motorcycles in the world, all motorcycle buyers would know that only ONE company makes motorcycles.

Not if everyone was naming their own motorcycles. And if Honda made all the motorcycles in the world, why would it need to put it's name on them? C'mon, stop trying so hard not to understand, please.

Therefore, if only ONE God created all man in His image, then spiritually all man would know that only one God created them.

"Spiritually", all men do know that one God created them. We've just developed different names and images for that God, and different stories about how and why it happened because we've all lived in different times, places, and cultures. How can you possibly not understand this???

Lets examine the basic logic, or rationale. We know that there are many different God(s) that are representative of many different cultures.

They are not "many different gods", they are many different names for, images of, and ways of conceptualizing the universal ideal that you and I call "God". That ideal generally being defined as 'the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is'. If you keep insisting on confusing the ideal with the symbols (words, images, stories, etc.) you will NEVER understand theism. And if you think I am stupid enough to buy into your attempt at conflating the symbols with the reality of "God", you're wasting your time.

 

[ecco]

"Spiritually", all men do know that one God created them.

I guess you are excluding atheists from "all men". Atheists do not believe, spiritually or otherwise, that one god created them.

I believe you would not get a consensus from Christians and Muslims that Brahma created all men. Nor would you get acceptance from Buddhists that their creator is an angry old man in the sky.

Every culture, since long before the advent of writing, created gods to address questions for which there were no apparent answers.

They are not "many different gods", they are many different names for, images of, and ways of conceptualizing the universal ideal that you and I call "God". ...
If you keep insisting on confusing the ideal with the symbols (words, images, stories, etc.) you will NEVER understand theism.

What you are saying is that if people don't buy into your concept, they will NEVER understand your concept.


On the other hand, I do understand where you are coming from. You are using this OneGod concept to try to counter the evidence that all gods are just the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[Audie]

They are not "many different gods", they are many different names for, images of, and ways of c.

I wonder how you know this.

It does seem vaguely more likely than "many"
as nobody has ever actually detected even one god,
let alone many.

"Spiritually", all men do know that one God created them.

I get out of this on the technicality of my not being
a man, which is only fair, as you get out of having to deal
with any challenge to the claim, by using the word "spiritually".

Still, I do wonder how you (think you) know these things
that you say.

 

[Yerda]

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

The way he describes atheism and how it relates to science doesn't make sense to me.

What is an absolute statement?

 

[Audie]

I guess you are excluding atheists from "all men". Atheists do not believe, spiritually or otherwise, that one god created them.

I believe you would not get a consensus from Christians and Muslims that Brahma created all men. Nor would you get acceptance from Buddhists that their creator is an angry old man in the sky.

Every culture, since long before the advent of writing, created gods to address questions for which there were no apparent answers.





What you are saying is that if people don't buy into your concept, they will NEVER understand your concept.


On the other hand, I do understand where you are coming from. You are using this OneGod concept to try to counter the evidence that all gods are just the creations of man's imaginings.

We see a lot of people saying that coz we aint spiritual
we can never understand "theism" of whatever sort.

That may or may not be so; but to a man the
theists demonstrate over and over that they
cannot comprehend what it is to actually be an
atheist.

The worst are the ones who say they used to
be atheist, so know all about atheism, used to
think and see things as we do, but have since
matured, gained wisdom, and moved beyond
such foolishness.

All such are people who base their whole construct
of reality on a "god". The alpha and omega, the
measure of all (all all all) things.

How could one drop that? All is t hen but an
empty shell, meaningless, nay, a bitter mocker,
without form and void, you almost might
say.

Ok; to them, it would be. So they will bitterly
cling to whatever absurdity they have invested in.

Which is their business, fine, let them do so.

Just dont, you know, in the meantime put on this
ridiculous act of understanding atheism and being
soooo much wiser.

 

[Audie]

The way he describes atheism and how it relates to science doesn't make sense to me.

What is an absolute statement?

Who knows. But I will say this- science
does not do"absolute". What a weird thing
for anyone to say it does.

And for that matter, I sure dont see how
"I do not believe there is a dead cat
in the freezer," is in some way some
sort of "absolute"!

 

[Revoltingest]

"Spiritually", all men do know that one God created them. We've just developed different names and images for that God, and different stories about how and why it happened because we've all lived in different times, places, and cultures. How can you possibly not understand this???

It's not that we don't understand your perspective.
We disagree.
This claimed knowledge of gods, & especially the limitation
that there be only one....I don't have it, & never did.

 

[Yerda]

Who knows. But I will say this- science
does not do"absolute". What a weird thing
for anyone to say it does.

And for that matter, I sure dont see how
"I do not believe there is a dead cat
in the freezer," is in some way some
sort of "absolute"!

You mean there's a live cat in your freezer?!

The title of the thread could just as easily have been "Science and theism inconsistent?" if we apply the reasoning in the article to theism instead of atheism.

 

[Audie]

It's not that we don't understand your perspective.
We disagree.
This claimed knowledge of gods, & especially the limitation
that there be only one....I don't have it, & never did.

I should report you for just repeating what I said,
but with 95% fewer words.

 

[Revoltingest]

I should report you for just repeating what I said,
but with 95% fewer words.

Remember that snitches get stitches.

 

[Audie]

You mean there's a live cat in your freezer?!

The title of the thread could just as easily have been "Science and theism inconsistent?" if we apply the reasoning in the article to theism instead of atheism.

A. Not for long
B. Far better.
But delete the ? mark.

 

[verb]

Probably the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, does not have a stance equivalent to the one that this physicist puts forward. Dawkins categorically states that he cannot claim beyond possibility that there is no god.

It depends on who he is talking to. The story often changes for the audience.

 

[Audie]

It depends on who he is talking to. The story often changes for the audience.

Ah, sleazy and dishonest! Tell us more, give us examples!!

 

[PureX]

I wonder how you know this.

I am very smart.

Still, I do wonder how you (think you) know these things
that you say.

I understand how artifice works and why we humans engage in it better than most people do. I've studied it, and practiced it for many years. Artifice is how we humans give conceptual "shape" and "context" to our experience of being, and how we convey that experience to others.

 

[shunyadragon]

ecco:
Ah, yes, let's disparage the "traditional theist belief systems based on ancient scripture". Out with the old, in with the new. But not too new. Bahai is just right. Like the right porridge.​

You stated:

I do consider the atheist view more rational and logical than that of the traditional theist belief systems based on ancient scripture like Christianity.​

You, a theist, put belief in ancient traditional Christianity on a rung beneath atheism. You did not say something similar about Bahai. The implication is that Bahai is superior to both.

ecco:
Why do you believe atheists have a need to satisfy some spiritual needs?​

Really? Did you not write...

Atheists, agnostics, and other humanists are often in rebellion against traditional beliefs. If they seek a sense of belonging and community they will often turn to like minded institutions like the UU or Zen Buddhism for a more spiritual approach.​

You made the comment and now you can't explain why you believe atheists have a need to satisfy some spiritual needs.



That's your response "they are human"? And, since you are a human who needs to satisfy some spiritual needs, you egotistically conclude that all humans need to satisfy some spiritual needs.



You don't consider "all humans" to be a generalziation?



You don't consider "Some if not many" and "most" to be generalizations?

You don't like my responses and refer to them as "vindictive sarcasm" and state that they do not "contribute to the dialogue". However, you are entirely comfortable with saying that atheists need to satisfy some spiritual needs. You are entirely comfortable with making sweeping demeaning and factually incorrect statements like "atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers".




I could be generous and chalk up your comments to ignorance. But that would not be correct. You have been on this forum for two years. I'm sure I'm not the first atheist to tell you that you are (redacted).

As with what happened with another rant from a poster I WILL NOT respond, in part because you have misrepresented my post and did not respond to what wrote, and in part it is a venomous vindictive response and not remotely of interest in a civil dialogue.

 

[shunyadragon]

You apparently didn't even read my reply to you.

Do you think it makes sense to ascribe the words "true" or "false" to atheism? More succinctly (to try and get rid of the problem of "what labels mean" here): Do you think it makes sense to ascribe the word "true" or "false" to the disbelief that I have of your ideas of god(s)? Can my disbelief even be "true?" Can my disbelief even be "false?"

First I did not prescribe true nor false to atheism, I said neither applies. Come back again with a coherent response,

 

[PureX]

It's not that we don't understand your perspective.
We disagree.
This claimed knowledge of gods, & especially the limitation
that there be only one....I don't have it, & never did.

You are in a very small minority. And I used the term "all men" because that was the term used in the post I was responding to, by that poster. Obviously, there are few ideas that "all men" share, and none that they would share, exactly. But the ideal of "God" is one that a great many men and women share, across time, place, and culture. Claiming this is not so because they used different names, images, and myths to express their idealized experience doesn't change the overwhelming universality of it. And all the disagreement you can muster isn't going to change that.