Science and atheism inconsistent?

[charlie sc]

So, has everyone/anyone come to the conclusion that atheists can't do science ?

 

[We Never Know]

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.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh now you are just stating the obvious, heedless of
it's being anathema to a philosopher.

Obvious to you and to me. Not to others here.

 

[Audie]

And all monotheists are atheist where every other god but the one they imagine is involved

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.

 

[PureX]

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.

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).

 

[ChristineM]

I disagree, there is no objective verifiable evidence for absence. Methodological Naturalism cannot formulate nor falsify hypothesis beyond our physical existence for negative claims.

There is evidence that no god has shown him/her/it self, ever. That is as objective as it gets

 

[Audie]

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?

 

[ChristineM]

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.

I would like to give that at least 4 frubes but alas i am limited to only one

 

[PureX]

We also cannot escape that "it is," since we are ("I am").

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is evidence that no god has shown him/her/it self, ever. That is as objective as it gets

No there is not. Past events in history cannot be negatively determined by objective evidence. Past historical claims of events can only be objectively determined based on archaeological evidence.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Perhaps your prior commitment to naturalism (your religious view) is what makes it a problem,?

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.

 

[Willamena]

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.

There's no evidence that what we think it is isn't what it is.

You don't get subjectivity without objectivity, and vice-versa. They are two sides of one cognizant coin.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, has everyone/anyone come to the conclusion that atheists can't do science ?

No. In fact atheists are more consistent on their science than traditional Christians.

 

[Audie]

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).

There ya go again with "choose to believe".
If you are into self deception, that is for
the worse for you.
Making up equivalent failings on others'
part is also for the worse for you, and,
of course, any argument you wish to
concoct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I will state that specific "Gods" can be refuted, but not the overarching concept of "god". There may be one out there. But there is no more logical reason to believe in one than there is to believe in pixies without evidence. I don't believe but state show me reliable evidence and I will.

 

[ChristineM]

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?

We got one, just up the road at Marqueyssac

Marqueyssac



Met him a couple of times, really nice guy to talk to.

 

[PureX]

There's no evidence that what we think it is isn't what it is.

"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.

You don't get subjectivity without objectivity, and vice-versa. They are two sides of one cognizant coin.

I agree. And neither of them can present us with any truth (or evidence of truth) but their own.

 

[ecco]

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.

"when one finds evidence that supports a belief."
You mean evidence like the two-year-old coming to realize what it means when his mommy says, for the 600th time,

Thank you Lord for this dinner. In Jesus name, amen.​

That kind of evidence?

 

[Audie]

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.

I thought of that dino because there is a park in
Taipei with a wonderfully detailed (bronze?) Allosaurus.

There is a winding path through tall thick tropical
vegetation, then, there it is!

The effect is that it had been lying down, resting
perhaps. Heard you coming, and has risen to
maybe half of fully upright.

It's head is turned, looking right at you. Maybe
four meters away. You are not going to get away.

(If he is like yours its get away from
nothing worse than that you
simply must sit down for some tea)

 

[ecco]

Show me it. Ockham's razor use the simplest solution. You can only create nothing in your imagination no where else is it possible.

Nothing is more simple than nothing! So Occam's Razor says you must support and believe in nothing.