charlie sc
Well-Known Member
So, has everyone/anyone come to the conclusion that atheists can't do science ?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Actually no. An atheist is one that does not believe in a god. That is a big tent that varies from hard atheists that positively declare there is no God to agnostics that do not know if a god does it does not exist,but does not believe in any God that can be named.
The man should learn what an atheist is.
Obvious to you and to me. Not to others here.Oh now you are just stating the obvious, heedless of
it's being anathema to a philosopher.
And all monotheists are atheist where every other god but the one they imagine is involved
Agnosticism is a bit of a different philosophical proposition from theism and atheism; so that it can overlap with either atheism or theism. Agnosticism simply asserts that there is insufficient information available for one to determine the existence or non-existence of "God". This does not, however, preclude one from making that determination based on something other than "sufficient information" (we each have to define for ourselves what this "sufficient information" would entail). For example, there are many theists who will assert that they lack "sufficient information" to determine that "God exists". And yet they still can choose to trust in (have faith in) the belief that God does exist based on the value that doing so produces in their experience of life, rather then on any required information. And likewise, an atheist might choose to maintain the belief that no gods exist based on some criteria other than "insufficient information" (though I don't know what this other criteria would be, as I see no value in a determined non-belief).How can anyone be a pure agnostic on the belief of existence?
Also, how are you defining agnostic? I ask because I've seen people use atheist and agnostic in different ways.
I disagree, there is no objective verifiable evidence for absence. Methodological Naturalism cannot formulate nor falsify hypothesis beyond our physical existence for negative claims.
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.
Show us a goddie who can take that last lil
step in his mind and grasp it that we see all
gods as he might the kitchen god!
It is sofreaking easy but they get all tangled up
in definitions, shades of nuance, and, that
greatest perplexer of perplexity, "philosophy"
so written with quotation marks in deference to
its ability to generate the opposite of what it
promises.
Religions have much the same habit,
now that I think about it.
Sure, but we can't know what "I" or "am" is apart from whatever we think it is, so my knowing that "I am" doesn't really tell me anything about the truth of it. It's just an empty tautological statement that can't be negated, nor verified.We also cannot escape that "it is," since we are ("I am").
There is evidence that no god has shown him/her/it self, ever. That is as objective as it gets
Nature doesn't require beliefs. Something is either real or it is not real. After many pieces of evidence are tested and tests are repeatable with the same results each time, we can say the something is real and therefore true. All other untested observations are only subjective and we cannot know if they are real and true.Perhaps your prior commitment to naturalism (your religious view) is what makes it a problem,?
There's no evidence that what we think it is isn't what it is.Sure, but we can't know what "I" or "am" is apart from whatever we think it is, so my knowing that "I am" doesn't really tell me anything about the truth of it. It's just an empty tautological statement that can't be negated, nor verified.
So, has everyone/anyone come to the conclusion that atheists can't do science ?
Agnosticism is a bit of a different philosophical proposition from theism and atheism; so that it can overlap with either atheism or theism. Agnosticism simply asserts that there is insufficient information available for one to determine the existence or non-existence of "God". This does not, however, preclude one from making that determination based on something other than "sufficient information" (we each have to define for ourselves what this "sufficient information" would entail). For example, there are many theists who will assert that they lack "sufficient information" to determine that "God exists". And yet they still can choose to trust in (have faith in) the belief that God does exist based on the value that doing so produces in their experience of life, rather then on any required information. And likewise, an atheist might choose to maintain the belief that no gods exist based on some criteria other than "insufficient information" (though I don't know what this other criteria would be, as I see no value in a determined non-belief).
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.
No nuance between "faith" that there is no
Allosaurus in the park to menace my walk,
and "faith" as a highest virtue to be held
fast no matter what, and that by dint of
attention to certain rituals one will get
eternal reward?
"Evidence" is subjective, so that doesn't really matter. We can't escape from existing, or from existing within our own consciousness, so as to observe these experiences relative to each other. So we have no way of ascertaining any kind of 'truth' of the relationship between them. We have to live what we believe, because it's all we have.There's no evidence that what we think it is isn't what it is.
I agree. And neither of them can present us with any truth (or evidence of truth) but their own.You don't get subjectivity without objectivity, and vice-versa. They are two sides of one cognizant coin.
"when one finds evidence that supports a belief."Atheism is basically the null hypothesis. It is the starting point one changes from it when one finds evidence that supports a belief. It needs no evidence. It is claims that there is a specific god that need evidence.
We got one, just up the road at Marqueyssac
Marqueyssac
View attachment 27888
Met him a couple of times, really nice guy to talk to.
Show me it. Ockham's razor use the simplest solution. You can only create nothing in your imagination no where else is it possible.