Science = Atheistic?

[Luminous]

science has pleanty of beliefs...in fact, everything in science is simply a very believable possibility(or the best to have currently). there is no sufficiency...The scientific method is inherently spiritually based: the agnostic spirit. If there is a claim, it needs to be backed up...otherwise it remains a very unbelievable claim.

 

[DarkSun]

science has pleanty of beliefs...in fact, everything in science is simply a very believable possibility(or the best to have currently). there is no sufficiency...The scientific method is inherently spiritually based: the agnostic spirit. If there is a claim, it needs to be backed up...otherwise it remains a very unbelievable claim.

Do agnostics believe in spirits?

 

[McBell]

I have never seen any contradiction between science and spirituality,

Wait till you meet a Young Earth Creationist....

 

[DarkSun]

People keep saying that "Science" has no beliefs. But what is a hypothesis? Before a hypothesis is tested, isn't it just a guess, a belief if you will? When it is sufficiently proven as true or false, there is no more "belief." But what of that in between time? What would happen if science never ventured into the unknown? Would we even have atomic theory? Cell theory? Would we understand the forces of gravity and electricity? I think the scientific method is inherently belief or faith based.

Are you trying to compare a hypothesis to religious, theistic faith? Because the two are entirely different. No scientist will ever claim that a hypothesis is true, unless there is sufficient evidence to support it. But faith requires you to assume that a certain hypothesis is true without any evidence.

Is science atheistic by nature? No. It has no stance on the subject. And I think it will remain that way for a long time to come.

Glad we agree.

God does not lend himself to experimentation.

He might, but we just don't call our observations "God". We call them natural processes - which may well be due to God.

I mean, an omnipotent being would have no problem setting things in motion in a way that things would turn out how he wanted, without ever showing himself where he didn't want to be seen.

An omnipotent God is illogical. If God is all-powerful, could He build a wall He cannot jump over?

Yes? Then He is not all-powerful.

No? Then He is not all-powerful.

He can foresee any possibility of his being detected and avoid any that don't suit his purposes.

You may find this surprising to know... but Niel Armstrong left cheese on the moon. But you can't see it with the Hubble telescope, because it was invisible cheese.

If he wanted to give the world incontrovertible proof of his existence, he would have already done so. If he doesn't, we aren't going to outwit him, are we? (Unless he is a completely different kind of being than we generally make him out to be.)

How could we ever outwit an omniscient being?

 

[Luminous]

Do agnostics believe in spirits?

this one doesn't. but plenty of them do...
i was speaking about the "scientific spirit"... as in the essense of science and agnosticism. more metaphorical really.
some agnostics even attempt to believe themselfs when they deny their agnosticism. they call that attempt faith when it fails them, and knowledge when it works.

 

[PolyHedral]

If God is all-powerful, could He build a wall He cannot jump over?

I believe the standard answer to this is "Yes. And then he will jump over it anyway."

 

[BruceDLimber]

But doesn't this depend on which religion we are talking about? For example, if your religion says that seizures can be cured by an exorcist to remove the demons, or the handicapped can rise from their wheelchairs due to an infusion of the holy spirit, then your religion is not outside the domain of science.

No, I'd call that more superstition masquerading as religion!

IMHO TRUE religion is concerned with things spiritual and the Next Life, not with the sorts of stuff you describe (not to mention that my reilgion rejects the idea of "demons" anyway as just more supserstition).

Bruce

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, I'd call that more superstition masquerading as religion!

IMHO TRUE religion is concerned with things spiritual and the Next Life, not with the sorts of stuff you describe (not to mention that my reilgion rejects the idea of "demons" anyway as just more supserstition
).

Bruce

Is it fair to say that some kinds of religious belief are rejected by science, and others are outside the domain of science?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Agnostic isn't supposing well there may or may not be, Agnostic is more leaning towards well lets be spiritual and there are still supernatural things that i believe in but have been falsified and so on.

Agnostic is more of middle ground in that there is no possible way of knowing for sure. Some agnostics lean towards an atheistic side, and some a theistic side. But the core of the belief is that any knowledge in a deity/god is unknowable.

 

[Storm]

Is it fair to say that some kinds of religious belief are rejected by science, and others are outside the domain of science?

The only time science has anything to say on religion is when believers try to pretend mythology is science. YEC, for example.

As for the OP, science has nothing to say on the subject of religion, with the above exception noted. Since it takes no stance, it cannot be fairly described as atheistic. If one must attribute a religious opinion to it, it's agnostic.

I don't feel like digging through the whole thread to find the post/er, but someone brought up weak atheism as a defense for calling science atheistic. This is a semantic game at best. Atheism, weak or strong, has an opinion on the subject of God; science does not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My plea in defending atheist lay in the fact that an atheist is actually “pure in heart.” An atheist sincerely believes that there is no God.

Not quite. Atheists simply don't believe that there is a God - no belief involved, just the lack of one.

When an atheist does a good deed, he does it from the goodness of his or her heart. An atheist does not have any type of hope of some future reward in heaven because he doesn't believe that there is a heaven (except for the one that he can see). A scientist is usually a person that deals in pure reality. If they cannot feel, taste, touch, or see it, then it doesn’t exist.

Again, not quite. Scientists can find other ways to test for things that do not require direct observation.

On the plus side for scientist, they do experiments and try to find answers to things. The bible says, “seek and ye shall find.” Since scientists actually look for things, they will probably find God before most Christians do. Even Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists in history, believed that telepathy was possible.

Never heard anything like that. Any sources?

In the Beatitudes Matthew, 5: 8 states: “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” A person that is pure in heart is a person that is serious. An Atheist sincerely believes that there is no God.

Again, not quite.

I understand when Thomas had to actually put his hand into the side of Jesus to believe. I understand that when an atheist looks at the world that this physical world is all that he sees. I understand that an atheist does not “know where he came from, or where he is going.” I understand because I once had the same type of attitude. It was this same attitude that eventually led me to God. It was this attitude that caused me to speak out and ask God where are you?. I asked God where were you when six million Jews were slaughtered like animals? Where were you when millions of Africans that were brought to America, were murdered and used as slaves? I finally asked God that if he truly exists, then show himself to me, and he did. I know I may sound like I'm off my rocker, because some believe that it's impossible to see God and live. But my point here is that I was serious, just as an atheist seriously believes that there is no God. My intentions had to be absolutely sincere in order for this to happen, The reason that an atheist does not come to God is because they do not diligently seek him. They do not seek him because they see no reason to seek out someone that they believe does not exist.

Although I've been nit-picky here, I have to thank you for a very understanding and honest about the atheist position. I think you have an excellent grasp on atheism, and that's extremely refreshing to me.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Are you trying to compare a hypothesis to religious, theistic faith? Because the two are entirely different. No scientist will ever claim that a hypothesis is true, unless there is sufficient evidence to support it. But faith requires you to assume that a certain hypothesis is true without any evidence.

Likewise it would be folly to claim that a religious belief is true without sufficient evidence to support the claim. That is why it is a "belief." A belief works like a hypothesis. You can test it and act on it to confirm it as true or false. If a belief is untestable, what good is it? That is why there is no reason to try and figure out what happened "before" the big bang. Because we have no means of testing or determining what happened before time and space began, any theories would be conjecture. If a God concept is untestable and has no bearing on our existence, it is useless conjecture as well.

He might, but we just don't call our observations "God". We call them natural processes - which may well be due to God.

Hmm... interesting. That brings up a lot of questions and stuff to think about. Is God the universe? How can we tell? I'm not exactly asking you. Those are just questions that come to mind.

An omnipotent God is illogical. If God is all-powerful, could He build a wall He cannot jump over?

Yes? Then He is not all-powerful.

No? Then He is not all-powerful.

Hmm... I think that God is still bound to reality. He can no more bend and break the rules than anyone else. Does that make him less than "all powerful" to you? How about "God has all power that it is possible to have within the limitations of the laws of the universe."

You may find this surprising to know... but Niel Armstrong left cheese on the moon. But you can't see it with the Hubble telescope, because it was invisible cheese.

I don't believe you. You'll have to do a lot more to convince me that I should even take your claim seriously. (I know that wasn't your real purpose, but I don't really get what your real purpose was. So feel free to try to get your point across again. Sorry.)

How could we ever outwit an omniscient being?

That's the point. We couldn't. So the only rules we can play by are his. The only way we can discover if an omniscient being exists is if that being wants to reveal itself to us. Otherwise we might as well be arguing about the existence of the FSM. And if such a being wants to reveal itself to us, it is by it's rules and conditions (if it has any). It could easily prove itself to all of us. Maybe, just maybe, such a being would have reasons for not revealing itself to us all at once in an obvious and intrusive manner. Such a possibility does exist. However small.

 

[UniversalScholar]

Science is NOT Athiestic.

If you believe in truth and proof like I do, you can easily prove this.

Religion has its origins not as the cult, pyramid scheme commercial it is today whereby 99percent of the followers do not understand the book which they read.

Religion started out - in our 'history' (after the ice age) in what we refer to now as Egypt. It began as SCIENCE. It was Monotheistic. It had no name, and no occult characteristics as religion does today. It was simply the study of life.

In short, science is not atheistic because science is the mother of all religions.
Science being 'The study of life', and not what is taught in classes, on televisions etc. That is not science, it is theory masquerading as fact. Religion is synonymous with science, just do your homework; look into the past. Get to the source.

 

[Storm]

Religion has its origins not as the cult, pyramid scheme commercial it is today whereby 99percent of the followers do not understand the book which they read.

Religion started out - in our 'history' (after the ice age) in what we refer to now as Egypt. It began as SCIENCE. It was Monotheistic. It had no name, and no occult characteristics as religion does today. It was simply the study of life.

Actually, no. Animism predates monotheism significantly, and I think ancestor worship does, too.

Is this supposed to be your proof?

In short, science is not atheistic because science is the mother of all religions.

Wrong again. Science began as "natural philosophy" in a time when philosophy was deeply religious. You've got it backwards.

Science being 'The study of life', and not what is taught in classes, on televisions etc. That is not science, it is theory masquerading as fact. Religion is synonymous with science, just do your homework; look into the past. Get to the source.

 

[UniversalScholar]

Actually, no. Animism predates monotheism significantly, and I think ancestor worship does, too.

Is this supposed to be your proof?


Wrong again. Science began as "natural philosophy" in a time when philosophy was deeply religious. You've got it backwards.

The worship of the sun predates all you have just listed.
That is technically MONO-theism.
Because the sun wasnt what they were worshipping literally, it is ONE, mono, omnipotent force.

Philosophy was deeply religious? Thats an oxymoron if Ive ever heard one. Maybe you are the one who's got it backwards?


Please; with all due respect - use real evidence, facts, whenever you discredit what I say and begin each sentence with "NO", "ACTUALLY", "WRONG"; without providing any solid evidence... besides irrelevant words, biases and smilies like " " just makes your intentions seem more than questionable.. And also come a bit harder next time you try to discredit anything i say - you arent speaking with an alien conspiracy theorist... If I give you factual, researched and refined; dont give me opinionated, unbacked and raw bethought doctrine.


Either prove to me animism predates monotheism.
Heck, prove to me monotheism doesnt include animism.
Animism isnt a belief my friend; its an idea - that humans arent the only things with souls... you think that predates looking into the sky and seeing the sun..

Please mate, please. Leave your bias on your dresser, this is truth and proof we're supposed to be discussing. And if not - im in no way interested in arguing against your opinions rather than your solid findings.

 

[Storm]

The worship of the sun predates all you have just listed.
That is technically MONO-theism.
Because the sun wasnt what they were worshipping literally, it is ONE, mono, omnipotent force.

Philosophy was deeply religious? Thats an oxymoron if Ive ever heard one. Maybe you are the one who's got it backwards?


Please; with all due respect - use real evidence, facts, whenever you discredit what I say and begin each sentence with "NO", "ACTUALLY", "WRONG"; without providing any solid evidence... besides irrelevant words, biases and smilies like " " just makes your intentions seem more than questionable.. And also come a bit harder next time you try to discredit anything i say - you arent speaking with an alien conspiracy theorist... If I give you factual, researched and refined; dont give me opinionated, unbacked and raw bethought doctrine.


Either prove to me animism predates monotheism.
Heck, prove to me monotheism doesnt include animism.
Animism isnt a belief my friend; its an idea - that humans arent the only things with souls... you think that predates looking into the sky and seeing the sun..

Please mate, please. Leave your bias on your dresser, this is truth and proof we're supposed to be discussing. And if not - im in no way interested in arguing against your opinions rather than your solid findings.

Wow, aren't we sensitive?

Hate to break it to you, "mate," but I presented just as much evidence as you did: none at all.

BTW, shifting the burden doesn't work on me.

 

[jonman122]

The worship of the sun predates all you have just listed.
That is technically MONO-theism.
Because the sun wasnt what they were worshipping literally, it is ONE, mono, omnipotent force.

Philosophy was deeply religious? Thats an oxymoron if Ive ever heard one. Maybe you are the one who's got it backwards?


Please; with all due respect - use real evidence, facts, whenever you discredit what I say and begin each sentence with "NO", "ACTUALLY", "WRONG"; without providing any solid evidence... besides irrelevant words, biases and smilies like " " just makes your intentions seem more than questionable.. And also come a bit harder next time you try to discredit anything i say - you arent speaking with an alien conspiracy theorist... If I give you factual, researched and refined; dont give me opinionated, unbacked and raw bethought doctrine.


Either prove to me animism predates monotheism.
Heck, prove to me monotheism doesnt include animism.
Animism isnt a belief my friend; its an idea - that humans arent the only things with souls... you think that predates looking into the sky and seeing the sun..

Please mate, please. Leave your bias on your dresser, this is truth and proof we're supposed to be discussing. And if not - im in no way interested in arguing against your opinions rather than your solid findings.

actually from all the evidence we've collected, animism is in fact the earliest form of worship. Your random speculation as to worshipping the sun is just your own biased opinion, so it has absolutely no merrit.

 

[Storm]

actually from all the evidence we've collected, animism is in fact the earliest form of worship. Your random speculation as to worshipping the sun is just your own biased opinion, so it has absolutely no merrit.

Thanks.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Is it fair to say that some kinds of religious belief are rejected by science, and others are outside the domain of science?

That could be, epecially if you use quite a broad definition of "religious."

As I said above, there are various topics we'd consider superstition or mistaken rather than religion as such.

But it's probably true that there's some sort of gray area in the center where one person's religion might be another's superstition.

But again, while science may be able to point out what comprises superstition in various cases, as I understand it science really doesn't directly address religion at all!

Regards,

Bruce

 

[McBell]

Science is NOT Athiestic.

If you believe in truth and proof like I do, you can easily prove this.

Religion has its origins not as the cult, pyramid scheme commercial it is today whereby 99percent of the followers do not understand the book which they read.

Religion started out - in our 'history' (after the ice age) in what we refer to now as Egypt. It began as SCIENCE. It was Monotheistic. It had no name, and no occult characteristics as religion does today. It was simply the study of life.

In short, science is not atheistic because science is the mother of all religions.
Science being 'The study of life', and not what is taught in classes, on televisions etc. That is not science, it is theory masquerading as fact. Religion is synonymous with science, just do your homework; look into the past. Get to the source.

um...
Seems you completely forgot to present the 'proof'.
Now I understand that this is merely an oversight on your part.
However, I do ask that you please present the actual proof so that I may look it over.

Thanks you.