The Folly of Atheism

[Trailblazer]

No, I get tired of the same nonsense time after time.

It appears that at best you did not understand the list that was given that would make your reliance on prophecies rational. We should discuss that first.

To be honest, I did not have time to read that list because I should have already logged off the computer by then since I had to get up to go to work, so I saved it in a Word document to read later.

I do not rely upon prophecies for proof of who Baha'u'llah was. I never read one prophecy before I became a Baha'i. I rely upon the Writings of Baha'u'llah, that is proof to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I pointed out in a previous post, the ridiculousness of something is a purely SUBJECTIVE matter. Science does NOT deal with such subjects. You may as well be asking for a scientific theory for why strawberry flavored ice cream is the BEST flavor. Science isn't intended to determine a SUBJECTIVE matter like a favorite preference for flavors. So why do you insisting that it should be able to?

And that connects to "by far the most effective means". Why is it important that it is effective and who is that important to?
Can you give evidence for that using science or is it a purely subjective matter? Something is only effective to somebody and that is what makes it subjective.

If science doesn't deal with purely subjective matters, then it is maybe important, that "by far the most effective means" is indeed a subjective matter.
So maybe then that "the scientific method has been by far the most effective means we've ever found for determining how the universe works" is missing something, because science can't deal with subjective matters, yet you use subjective matters in arguing your case. So maybe what is important to you, is this subjective matter, that science doesn't deal with? Could that be my point? Just maybe? How knows?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you cannot explain how.

I have no problem explaining how. The problem lies with the understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be honest, I did not have time to read that list because I should have already logged off the computer by then since I had to get up to go to work, so I saved it in a Word document to read later.

I do not rely upon prophecies for proof of who Baha'u'llah was. I never read one prophecy before I became a Baha'i. I rely upon the Writings of Baha'u'llah, that is proof to me.

Then please go back and read it. Then we can discuss it if you have any objections. By not objecting to it you in effect accepted it.

And your "proof" only appears to be confirmation bias.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no problem explaining how. The problem lies with the understanding.

And how do you know I could not understand it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then please go back and read it. Then we can discuss it if you have any objections. By not objecting to it you in effect accepted it.

I'll let you know after I have read it.

And your "proof" only appears to be confirmation bias.

There is absolutely no way I could have had confirmation bias since I had nothing to confirm when I became a Baha'i.
Religion was an enigma to me as I was not raised in a religious home so I knew NOTHING about any religion.
That is probably one reason I was able to see the Truth of the Baha'i Faith, I had no confirmation bias.

Do you ever sleep? I have to sleep or I won't be reading anything. I hardly got any sleep last night.
I bid you goodnight.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism The title may put some off, but since the 'folly of religion' is a constant topic here on the forum, i thought it only fair to consider the folly of atheism.

And, since there is a disproportionately high number of vocal, proactive atheists here, a light hearted look at atheism should be welcome relief from the seriousness and intensity that some display.

A false dilemma
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)

The dilemma presented is usually like this:

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.

Well done!

I am ardent atheist; and fall within the minority of atheists, called "hard atheist", who will state with certainty, "There is no god!" However, I am a "humble hard atheist" as I accept that my belief int he lack of god is a belief-based statement. I have many reasons for holding that belief, some of which we can discuss another day.

HOWEVER, the majority of atheists are "soft atheists" who will not make such a strident statement. Most atheists do not hold a belief that "god does not exist" but instead hold the stand "I see no evidence for god, and until there is some compelling evidence, then I choose to withhold that belief". So we are actually dealing with an assumption on your part that atheists, as a whole, employ the "false dilemma" that you expressed, when in fact, most don't. Most would concede that god is real, if compelling evidence were offered to hold that to be true. But until then, most say, "We don't know for sure, and until we do know for sure, I see no compelling reason to believe".

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.

If any of these statements were to be true, then that is a good reason for atheists to exist.

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.

IF any of these are true, then its God's fault that there be atheists!

 

[PureX]

Well done!

I am ardent atheist; and fall within the minority of atheists, called "hard atheist", who will state with certainty, "There is no god!" However, I am a "humble hard atheist" as I accept that my belief int he lack of god is a belief-based statement. I have many reasons for holding that belief, some of which we can discuss another day.

HOWEVER, the majority of atheists are "soft atheists" who will not make such a strident statement. Most atheists do not hold a belief that "god does not exist" but instead hold the stand "I see no evidence for god, and until there is some compelling evidence, then I choose to withhold that belief".

This is not true. Most atheists believe that God does not exist, just as you do. But a large number of them are not willing, as you are, to admit that they cannot produce any more evidence or proof for their own belief than they are constantly demanding from the theist, for his. So instead of just being honest about it, they assert that they "have no belief", which is clearly a lie.

Here is what they actually believe: that if God/s were to exist, they (the atheist) would be able to recognize and verify God's existence to their (philosophical materialist's) satisfaction. And because they have not done so, they presume that God must not, therefor, exist. It is their 'we default to non-existence' that gives them away. As that is not the default position of someone who is simply unconvinced, or unable to determine a position due to a lack of sufficient information. That default position would be "I don't know", i.e., agnosticism. And this is NOT the position of any atheist, soft, hard, or moderately squishy.

Most would concede that god is real, if compelling evidence were offered to hold that to be true. But until then, most say, "We don't know for sure, and until we do know for sure, I see no compelling reason to believe".

And yet they somehow have managed to "see" a compelling reason NOT to believe. Or rather, to presume (believe) that gods do NOT exist. They just can't seem to find the courage to be honest about it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Most atheists believe that God does not exist, just as you do. But a large number of them are not willing, as you are, to admit that they cannot produce any more evidence or proof for their own belief than they are constantly demanding from the theist, for his. So instead of just being honest about it, they assert that they "have no belief", which is clearly a lie.

Here is what they actually believe: that if God/s were to exist, they (the atheist) would be able to recognize and verify God's existence to their (philosophical materialist's) satisfaction. And because they have not done so, they presume that God must not, therefor, exist.

Your evidence for this sweeping assertion is.... missing.

It is also total and utter nonsense in my case and every other atheist's that I've discussed this sort of thing with. I have never once (knowingly) met, or talked to, an atheist who thinks that that if god(s) existed they would necessarily be able to recognise and verify it.

Not once, ever...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

This is not true. Most atheists believe that God does not exist, just as you do. But a large number of them are not willing, as you are, to admit that they cannot produce any more evidence or proof for their own belief than they are constantly demanding from the theist, for his. So instead of just being honest about it, they assert that they "have no belief", which is clearly a lie.

Here is what they actually believe: that if God/s were to exist, they (the atheist) would be able to recognize and verify God's existence to their (philosophical materialist's) satisfaction. And because they have not done so, they presume that God must not, therefor, exist. It is their 'we default to non-existence' that gives them away. As that is not the default position of someone who is simply unconvinced, or unable to determine a position due to a lack of sufficient information. That default position would be "I don't know", i.e., agnosticism. And this is NOT the position of any atheist, soft, hard, or moderately squishy.
And yet they somehow have manages for "see" a compelling reason NOT to believe. Or rather, to presume (believe) that gods do NOT exist. They just can't seem to find the courage to be honest about it.

I find it presumptuous and arrogant to assert to know what others believe. You misunderstand a lot of things about the larger atheist community, where I am a bit of an outlier. I do not speak for the community as a whole. I speak only for myself. Just because you seem to have found an atheist who happens to come closer to your assertions of what an atheist is (in your mind) supposed to be does not mean that you have the entire atheist community by the tail or figured out.

• Negative claims do not require evidence. Positive claims do. I do not need to prove to you that dragons do not exist, for example; however, if you insist that dragons do, indeed, exist, then the burden of proof is on you No one is taken to court to prove that they did NOT commit a crime; but are taken to court because the State believes they DID commit a crime; and as such, the burden of proof is on the State to prove that allegation. Thus, no atheist has any burden of evidence to an assertion that God does not exist; if that is what they actually believe. I make the negative claim: "God does not exist". You make the positive claim: "God exists". The burden of proof is on you; not on me.
• I do not believe Santa Clause exists either. That makes me a "non-believer" in Santa Clause. It does not make me a "believer in absence of Santa Clause". So for the crowd of atheists whom you have thrown in my ball field, you misunderstand their position and for them, the assertion that they have "no belief" is an honest and accurate description of their position.
• One does not need to see a "compelling reason NOT to believe". One should see a "compelling reason TO believe".
• If your (and others') assertions and arguments for the existence of god fails, its not because the atheist defaults to non-belief; it is because the assertions and arguments have fallen short of being convincing.
• In one feil swoop, you have reversed both the burden of proof and compelling/rational reasons to believe (or not to believe) .... anything.
• No one knows better than the individual themselves what they actually believe. We are each and all the best authority to judge what we, ourselves, believe. It is appalling to me that you would assert that you know better than that individual, what that individual actually believes.
• Agnosticism and Atheism are closely related as the words are used in modern day. "Atheist" means "lack of belief"; thus, "agnostics", as you call them, fail to believe, and are thus "atheist". Terminologies have changed, as terminologies change over time. The "agnostic" is more the "soft atheist" while, what we used to call the "atheist", now represent the "hard atheist". While you may not like or agree with these terminologies, it is beneficial for communication and understanding of your non-believing neighbors for you to adapt.
• One calling themselves "atheist" far falls short of a clear description of what one believes (or doesn't). To assume that all atheists have one system of belief (or non-belief) is as much an egregious error as one assuming that all Christians have one system of belief. So if I want to know what you believe, it behooves me to ask you rather than make basal assumptions based on presuppositions on what "christian" means. I can assume that you are a young-earth creationist, a biblical literalist who genuinely believes in a worldwide flood, a Trump supporter, a gun advocate, a pro-lifer, anti-gay, a proponent of faith healing, holding true to the "trinity" doctrine and a literal believer in the classical description of "hell". But I am rather confident that one or more of these assertions is false; so it behooves me to withhold judgement of what you actually believe ... and instead ask you, the best judge and ultimate authority on matters of what you hold to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your evidence for this sweeping assertion is.... missing.

It is also total and utter nonsense in my case and every other atheist's that I've discussed this sort of thing with. I have never once (knowingly) met, or talked to, an atheist who thinks that that if god(s) existed they would necessarily be able to recognise and verify it.

Not once, ever...

Funny thing, I have been talking to atheists for over five years on various forums, 24/7, and almost all of them think that that if god(s) existed they would necessarily be able to recognise and verify it.

 

[Trailblazer]

usfan said: ↑
1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.

IF any of these are true, then its God's fault that there be atheists!

1. Why is it God's fault that He does not present a conspicuous presence, IF He has good reasons?
4. Why is it God's fault if something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
2. God does not reveal to some, and leave others wondering. God reveals Himself to everyone every time He sends a Messenger.

 

[ratiocinator]

Funny thing, I have been talking to atheists for over five years on various forums, 24/7, and almost all of them think that that if god(s) existed they would necessarily be able to recognise and verify it.

• Have they said that or have you assumed it?
  
  
• Can you provide a link to any of the discussions?
  
  
• There is a difference between the general statement about god(s) and specific cases. If a proposed god is supposed to be just and fair, and if it is going to judge people for not believing in it, then it is rational to expect a normal person to be able to recognise and verify its existence. Otherwise there is a basic contradiction.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said:
Funny thing, I have been talking to atheists for over five years on various forums, 24/7, and almost all of them think that that if god(s) existed they would necessarily be able to recognise and verify it.

• Have they said that or have you assumed it?
  
• Can you provide a link to any of the discussions?

• They have said it. I do not make assumptions about anyone.

Sorry, but I cannot provide the link to the discussions, but I have my own forum so you could come there and ask some atheists. Unfortunately, I have been so busy on this forum that there is really only one atheist I am now conversing with on my forum. He is downright lonely and wanting company so he told me to invite some atheists from RF over to my forum.

The Spiritual Horizon

• There is a difference between the general statement about god(s) and specific cases. If a proposed god is supposed to be just and fair, and if it is going to judge people for not believing in it, then it is rational to expect a normal person to be able to recognise and verify its existence. Otherwise there is a basic contradiction.

I fully agree. God is just and fair so God provides evidence that everyone is capable of recognizing but atheists do not like the evidence God provides so they get left behind.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If science can't answer everything, then how come you expect evidence for a claim?
If you know that there might not be evidence, then why start with the expectation of evidence?

As for "the scientific method has BY FAR been the most effective methods we've come across for determining how the universe works" I understand what you are saying as a worldview, but it is subjective. Or rather here is why I am going to ask for evidence. Unless you have scientific evidence how the universe is important and not that you feel that it is important, then we are back to this:
"Oh please DO explain how expecting verifiable evidence for a claim prior to believing it is in any way shape or form 'using in effect emotions'."
You attach value to scientific evidence, but if science can't explain everything, then it might be the case that there is no evidence for the fact that scientific evidence has value. It might be that it is your opinion that: "the scientific method has BY FAR been the most effective methods we've come across for determining how the universe works" and if that is the case, then how come you speak for a "we"?

The folly of atheism has nothing to do with atheism or non-religion versus religion. It has to do with the fact, that some people feel they can speak for a "we", that is not there.
I accept this as your opinion: "the scientific method has BY FAR been the most effective methods we've come across for determining how the universe works", but would you please stop claiming a "we".
I get that religions are ridiculous to you, but that is an opinion and then you turn around make your opinion universal for a "we".
The problem is not religion or science. It is that some humans claim a "we", that is not there. No human talks for all humans as such and that includes you and I.
So that is it. I don't accept that you can talk for a "we" simply by using a "we". Neither do I accept that if somebody do it in the name of religion.

So how come this is about emotions? It is so, because you in effect state what is import to you. I accept that and I don't find it ridiculous(an emotion), but you don't speak for a "we", just because you use a "we". That is what you have in common with some religious humans. Some humans think that they can speak for a "we" about what is important for all humans.
But if that is so important to speak for all humans maybe that is it is important to recognize that what is important is an emotion and that other humans might not share your individual emotions.
So if you want to find common ground for a "we", then maybe it is not the most effective method to use words like "ridiculous" and then use one's own individual opinion(emotion) of importance and declare it so for all, a "we".
So if science can't explain everything, then for a "we" as all humans as a sort of every human, you might want to consider if you indeed speak for every human and what your evidence is for that.

In other words, either you are trying to speak of all humans and if so, then you might reconsider how you do that or you are only speaking of a limited group of "we" versus "them", those who hold ridiculous views.
So what is it, who are you speaking for and to?

If science can't answer everything, then how come you expect evidence for a claim?
If you know that there might not be evidence, then why start with the expectation of evidence?

What science isn't designed for is to answers questions about SUBJECTIVE reality. Things like, What is the BEST flavor of ice cream? or Does she REALLY love me? or Do these pants make me look fat? In such cases person A can claim that strawberry ice cream in the best flavor and person B can claim that mint chocolate chip is the BEST flavor ice cream and they can BOTH be right, subject to their own personal tastes. So if someone tells me that they believe that Rocky Road is the BEST flavor of ice cream, I will NOT expect them to provide me with 'evidence' for their claim, even though I disagree, because it's a subjective matter. No one is claiming that Rocky Road is the best flavor for EVERYONE.

What science HAS proven itself to be very effective at is answering questions concerning OBJECTIVE reality. Things like, Does the Earth orbit the sun or does the sun orbit the Earth or is there another explanation, such as people who believe in a flat Earth would propose? The scientific method has determined with a fair degree of certainly that the answer is the Earth orbits the sun. This is a case where BOTH claims can NOT be true. This isn't a subjective matter of taste in which every person's opinion is equally valid. This is an OBJECTIVE reality for EVERYONE.

So if someone makes an objective claim that is supposed to be equally true for me as it is for them, it's only natural for me to seek objective evidence to back up the claim. What evidence is there that can be objectively verified by everyone that substantiates the claim? And of course, the more substantial the claim is the more evidence I would require in order for me to believe that it's true. From my 57 years of experience this has by far been the best method I've found for determining that validity of people's objective claims. If you think you've found a better or even an equally as effective method for determining such truths, I'm STILL waiting to hear what you think it is.

As for "the scientific method has BY FAR been the most effective methods we've come across for determining how the universe works" I understand what you are saying as a worldview, but it is subjective. Or rather here is why I am going to ask for evidence. Unless you have scientific evidence how the universe is important and not that you feel that it is important, then we are back to this:

Personally I feel that there is tons of evidence for the proposition that our comprehension of how the universe functions is important. The very fact that my parents generation suffered from a deadly and debilitating disease called Polio, one that our understanding of how the universe works has enabled us to create vaccines that have eradicated the ailment for my generation and beyond is CLEAR evidence that such knowledge about the universe is important. It was our ability to determine the OBJECTIVE reality about how biological illness occurs that has given us this important advancement.

"Oh please DO explain how expecting verifiable evidence for a claim prior to believing it is in any way shape or form 'using in effect emotions'."
You attach value to scientific evidence, but if science can't explain everything, then it might be the case that there is no evidence for the fact that scientific evidence has value. It might be that it is your opinion that: "the scientific method has BY FAR been the most effective methods we've come across for determining how the universe works" and if that is the case, then how come you speak for a "we"?

I use the term 'we' because I'm talking about OBJECTIVE reality... that reality which is equally true for all of us One objective reality is that there's this force called gravity and it applies equally to all of us. It's not a subjective reality where it's true for ME that if I pick up a rock and let go that it will fall to the ground. But for YOU it's true that if you pick up a rock and let go it will just float in mid air. Gravity has the exact same effect on the rock for BOTH of us. So when I say that the scientific method is the best method WE have found for objectively determining how the universe functions, it's because we're talking about OBJECTIVE truths that apply to us ALL.

The folly of atheism has nothing to do with atheism or non-religion versus religion. It has to do with the fact, that some people feel they can speak for a "we", that is not there.
I accept this as your opinion: "the scientific method has BY FAR been the most effective methods we've come across for determining how the universe works", but would you please stop claiming a "we".
I get that religions are ridiculous to you, but that is an opinion and then you turn around make your opinion universal for a "we".
The problem is not religion or science. It is that some humans claim a "we", that is not there. No human talks for all humans as such and that includes you and I.
So that is it. I don't accept that you can talk for a "we" simply by using a "we". Neither do I accept that if somebody do it in the name of religion.

IF you have an opinion about a BETTER or at least AS EFFECTIVE a method for determining OBJECTIVE reality, I'm STILL waiting to hear what it is.

And yes, I DO tend to have the opinion that all religions are ridiculous... but that is a SUBJECTIVE truth that applies to ME. And I'm quite aware that you have an alternate opinion that is equally as TRUE to YOU. I have NEVER claimed that religion being ridiculous is an OBJECTIVE reality that pertains to US or to 'WE'. I have ONLY claimed it as my OWN subjective truth. The ONLY time I speak of a WE is when it comes to the OBJECTIVE reality that we ALL share, which is what the scientific method deals with.

So how come this is about emotions? It is so, because you in effect state what is import to you. I accept that and I don't find it ridiculous(an emotion), but you don't speak for a "we", just because you use a "we". That is what you have in common with some religious humans. Some humans think that they can speak for a "we" about what is important for all humans.
But if that is so important to speak for all humans maybe that is it is important to recognize that what is important is an emotion and that other humans might not share your individual emotions.
So if you want to find common ground for a "we", then maybe it is not the most effective method to use words like "ridiculous" and then use one's own individual opinion(emotion) of importance and declare it so for all, a "we".
So if science can't explain everything, then for a "we" as all humans as a sort of every human, you might want to consider if you indeed speak for every human and what your evidence is for that.

When it comes to determining objective reality I don't use 'emotion' at all. I ask for verifiable object evidence. It has NOTHING to do with how I might 'feel' about the claim being made. IF there is verifiable evidence for it, I'll accept it as true. If there is NOT verifiable evidence for the claim then I have no reason to believe that it's true. Again, no emotions or feelings involved WHATSOEVER.

PLEASE stop claiming that I EVER said that religion being ridiculous is an OBJECTIVE reality that applies to everyone when it's an opinion that is CLEARLY SUBJECTIVE. The WE I have used has ONLY applied to the OBJECTIVE reality that is true for us all.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And that connects to "by far the most effective means". Why is it important that it is effective and who is that important to?
Can you give evidence for that using science or is it a purely subjective matter? Something is only effective to somebody and that is what makes it subjective.

If science doesn't deal with purely subjective matters, then it is maybe important, that "by far the most effective means" is indeed a subjective matter.
So maybe then that "the scientific method has been by far the most effective means we've ever found for determining how the universe works" is missing something, because science can't deal with subjective matters, yet you use subjective matters in arguing your case. So maybe what is important to you, is this subjective matter, that science doesn't deal with? Could that be my point? Just maybe? How knows?

I attempted to explain why I believe that comprehending how the universe objectively functions is effective and important in my previous post, but I'll expand on it here. Not only has this comprehension enabled us to eradicate numerous deadly diseases and increase human life spans considerably, without our knowledge of how electrons work we wouldn't be able to have this long rambling discussion on the Internet. None of this is a subjective argument. It's not just my opinion that germ theory helped us to understand disease, it's an objective reality.

And it was the scientific method with objective evidence that led us to this objective reality Nothing was 'missed' by ignoring all of the SUBJECTIVE opinions about how illness was caused by evil spirits or angry gods or witches casting spells. And people can have the subjective opinion that their computers run because of magical pixies or prayers to the Great Computer God, but that won't change the OBJECTIVE REALITY that computers work because we figured out how to manipulate electrons.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sorry, but I cannot provide the link to the discussions, but I have my own forum so you could come there and ask some atheists. Unfortunately, I have been so busy on this forum that there is really only one atheist I am now conversing with on my forum. He is downright lonely and wanting company so he told me to invite some atheists from RF over to my forum.

The Spiritual Horizon

There appears to be a technical problem: I clicked "continue as guest" and just got a blank page with a box at the top.

I fully agree. God is just and fair so God provides evidence that everyone is capable of recognizing but atheists do not like the evidence God provides so they get left behind.

Here we go again...

Go one then, where is this objective, verifiable evidence (there is no other kind) that atheists "don't like"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... "Long and somewhat relevant yet missed the point ...

PLEASE stop claiming that I EVER said that religion being ridiculous is an OBJECTIVE reality that applies to everyone when it's an opinion that is CLEARLY SUBJECTIVE. The WE I have used has ONLY applied to the OBJECTIVE reality that is true for us all.

See, the last paragraph is the point. I have learned to do subjective reality as important as objective reality. So for better I find it better for me to do hard science, soft science, philosophy, religion and humanities combined. So me answer to you and your "we". The objective reality is only inter-subjectively important and thus only inter-subjectively better. Now gravity is important to me and that is subjective.
And religion is important to me subjective and ridiculous to you as subjective. But my question you to is this: Is this subjective opinion of yours derived from science or it is nothing but subjective as:

- characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
- relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
- peculiar to a particular individual
- personal as subjective judgments
- modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
- arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
- arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
Definition of SUBJECTIVE

Opinion:
- a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
- belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
Definition of OPINION

So do you have beliefs without evidence based on objective reality?
You see that is what you left out:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

It is not just about taste and what not.
It is about that you can't do morality, utility(important) or judge the supernatural using science. So it would seem that science is not the only nor the best method for living in the everyday world and not just concerning one with objective reality.
Yes, objective reality is important, but that is subjective. And how important it is can vary and is not the same for all of us.
Learn to spot different kinds of importance and don't declare you own variant of importance so for all humans. That is the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I attempted to explain why I believe that comprehending how the universe objectively functions is effective and important in my previous post, but I'll expand on it here. Not only has this comprehension enabled us to eradicate numerous deadly diseases and increase human life spans considerably, without our knowledge of how electrons work we wouldn't be able to have this long rambling discussion on the Internet. None of this is a subjective argument. It's not just my opinion that germ theory helped us to understand disease, it's an objective reality.

And it was the scientific method with objective evidence that led us to this objective reality Nothing was 'missed' by ignoring all of the SUBJECTIVE opinions about how illness was caused by evil spirits or angry gods or witches casting spells. And people can have the subjective opinion that their computers run because of magical pixies or prayers to the Great Computer God, but that won't change the OBJECTIVE REALITY that computers work because we figured out how to manipulate electrons.

Yes, science is of limited usefulness, I will give you that.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

 

[PureX]

Your evidence for this sweeping assertion is.... missing.

That's because I posted no "evidence". Only my reasoned observations. Perhaps it's time to turn off the "I demand evidence" mode so you can see what's actually in front of you.

It is also total and utter nonsense in my case and every other atheist's that I've discussed this sort of thing with. I have never once (knowingly) met, or talked to, an atheist who thinks that that if god(s) existed they would necessarily be able to recognise and verify it.

Not once, ever...

And yet they all claim "non-belief" as their default position. Can you explain why they would default to the assumption that gods don't exist until proven otherwise if they don't believe that the existence of gods could be proven to them, to their satisfaction, if gods did exist?