OR, they are very clever trolls who find it amusing to gather under a silly banner.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science and atheism inconsistent?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
ecco
Veteran Member
Like one has to eat a mango to know it fully, one needs to eat one's self to “Know one’s self by one's self”.
WHAT?!?
I think the dictionary can help out your misunderstanding of my post and the point I was making.
American Heritage Dictionary-
Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
Proof:The evidence or argument that COMPELS THE MIND TO ACCEPT AN ASSERTION AS TRUE.
Proof is evaluated in the mind of the person weighing the evidence. If the evidence is compelling to the individual's mind, then it's accepted as proof.
Again, me a creationist and an atheist can look at the same evidence used to argue for the existence of God and come up with 2 different conclusions. It's proof to me, and not proof to the atheist, but it's still evidence regardless whether you accept it or not
Simplicity of general definitions are questionable and vague layman use when applied to science and logic. The definition for evidence you provided is subject to much misuse by personal preference by layman. I prefer to use objective verifiable evidence to refer to a more useful meaningful definition that cannot be confused. Proof in these discussions refer to how it is applied to math and logic, and avoid layman generalisations.
Once again, cherry picking .this time chaos theory
And you did not answer my questions.
It seems that once again we will not agree, so will agree to disagree with you and leave it here.
I believe I answered all your questions specifically and accurately.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
The bottom line is that Atheism has everything to do with science. If there was just one scientific objective bit of evidence supporting a belief in God, there would be no more Atheism.
I suggest you go back and re read my post #273
ecco
Veteran Member
When you say "personal, subjective evidence" aren't you really saying anecdotal evidence.
Something anecdotal has to do with anecdotes — little stories. Anecdotal evidence is based on hearsay rather than hard facts. People like to share stories about things that happened to them, or that they heard about, to make a point. That kind of talk is anecdotal: based on small, personal accounts.
anecdotal - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
Perhaps you meant something else when you said "personal, subjective evidence"anecdotal - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
Strawman. Your statement would be correct if we assumed "a conclusion based on 'no evidence'". But we don't.
I'll list one piece of evidence. Hopefully, you will remember it so you don't post strawmen in the future.
Over the course of history, there have been thousands of gods. When one looks at these gods and their attributes, it is clear that they are the embodiment of their founding cultures. This, in and of itself, is evidence that men created gods in their own image.
You probably believe that there is ample evidence to conclude that Zeus is not a god, but rather a construct of the people of ancient Greece. You probably make the same conclusion about his parents Cronus and Rhea. How about Mbombo or Ababinili? Shiva? Allah?
Yet, when we use this same evidence to dismiss your god, you say we have no evidence. It smells a little like hypocrisy.
Augustus
…
He point was more related to them both believing in 'salvation' through knowledge.
I read the post. SO WHAT?!?!?!?
I responded with references. I suggest you go back and read the specific references I gave. They do not represent personal opinion.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
No, but nice try at renaming it so it'd be easier for you to dismiss.
Or perhaps I meant personal subjective evidence.
Well, men certainly do create images, stories, sculptures, lore, superstitions, and other artifacts that they use to represent their perception/conception of "God", yes. But your dismissing of these artifacts hardly stands as a reasoned dismissal of the perceived/conceived "God" ideal that those artifacts represent.
Last edited:
Nope you ignored them and posted selective, cherry picked and irrelevant obfuscation
Obfuscation big time on your part.
I suggest you go back and read the specific references I gave. They do not represent personal opinion.
They dont? What opinion do they represent?
And you still haven't answered any of the questions. This is going nowhere... Again.
Recognized academic sources.
Questions answered to the best of my ability. If you have specifics please enlighten me.
=== NOTICE ===
I've never found that being an atheist interfered with science.
And vice versa.
I've never found that being an atheist interfered with science.
And vice versa.
I'm talking about:
- an absence of positive evidence for the existence of gods,
- positive evidence for the non-existence of certain gods,
- positive evidence corroborating many godless worldviews, and
- problems reconciling real-world evidence with worldviews that include gods.
But atheism isn't a belief system.
The misrepresentations were in your assumption that atheism implies methodological naturalism.
... that and the nonsensical term "belief in atheism."
ecco
Veteran Member
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal evidence
Definition of anecdotal evidence
: evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them
I'm not renaming anything.Definition of anecdotal evidence
: evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them
You said "personal subjective evidence"
Webster says "evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them"
I really don't see the difference. However, I can understand why you don't like the term "anecdotal evidence". People kind of dismiss anecdotal evidence as being useless. Of course, they also dismiss subjective personal stories, for the same reason.
I'm not ignoring anything. I stated that the physical qualities of the gods represented the physical qualities of the creating societies. For time and space considerations I did not go into more depth. Did you not see: "I'll list one piece of evidence."
Over the course of history, there have been thousands of gods. When one looks at these gods and their attributes, it is clear that they are the embodiment of their founding cultures. This, in and of itself, is evidencethat men created gods in their own image.
However, since you insist. The pronouncements and attributes of the various deities do not reflect a world view, they reflect the comparatively narrow view of the creators. The Jews created a heavy-handed god. The later Christians, living in different times made a more easy-going god.
The Christian god and the Viking god both promise eternal life, yet their versions of heaven are closely correlated to the environment in which the people lived. Odin, Thor, and Loki are completely foreign to the folks of the middle east of 2000 years ago. The Vikings would never have created a warm fuzzy god like Jesus.
As you can see from the above, I don't dismiss these things at all. I use them as evidence that gods are the creations of man's imaginings.