• 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?

ecco

Veteran Member
What you are looking at are the mythical, religious, iconic, and otherwise imagined representations of the general concept referred to by we humans as "God".

You failed to address the following...
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.
 
I am not interested in local colloquial definitions that suite american sensibilities. I quoted from the internationally accepted Oxford English Dictionary. Other international dictionaries provide similar definitions.

No, proof is factual, not a figment of the mind. You appear to be confusing proof with faith.

Again no, faith us not proof but you are most welcome to your faith.
I understand if you don't get it. It's ok, no worries:peace:
 
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.
I speak English. I use a dictionary that defines words that I speak in English. You can use what you want and define terms as you wish, that's your prerogative. As for me, I use what I use:peace:
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I speak English. I use a dictionary that defines words that I speak in English. You can use what you want and define terms as you wish, that's your prerogative. As for me, I use what I use:peace:

Nonetheless you are being difficult using layman terms when the discussion involves science and logic. The discussion is science consistent with atheism. If you wish to discuss the issue of Science in the subject of the thread, science has no concept of proof.

The 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.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The misrepresentations were in your assumption that atheism implies methodological naturalism.

... that and the nonsensical term "belief in atheism."

Your misquoting me Ontological Naturalism implies atheism. Methodological Naturalism is foundation of science that represents the basis for the knowledge and belief in Ontological Naturalism.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I guess technically, but pragmatically, reasonably, and practically saying "belief" tends to require it be narrowed down to something more specific for productive discourse. Especially since not everyone has a belief on the same things. Saying "belief" is about as broad as saying "soda."
broad or narrow a rose by any other name is still the same.
But atheism isn't a belief system.
but atheists have belief systems
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
atheism, Buddhist atheism, ie Zen, and at least forms of Pantheism.

I know that atheism is a belief but he said system of beliefs(plural). Therefore, I took that as ideology.

Atheism is not an ideology. If you become an atheist, you don't automatically become a Buddhist or a pantheist, nor if you remove Buddhism or Pantheism does it change atheism in any manner :p
So, can you explain to me how atheism, by itself, is an ideology?

Perhaps, we're taking past each other and you're describing what you can possibly become if you're an atheist. Yes, I think that's what you mean. Right?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Your misquoting me Ontological Naturalism implies atheism.

My mistake - ontological naturalism. Regardless, atheism does not imply any sort of naturalism.

Any worldview that does not include any gods is an atheist worldview, whether it's a "naturalistic" worldview or not.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The flaw of atheism is not what the atheist chooses to believe about the existence of gods. It's choosing to believe it without evidence, reason, or purpose. Theism lacks evidence, but it at least can offer a positive purpose. And agnosticism lack evidence, but it at least can claim honest skepticism, with an open mind. But atheism can claim none of these. It fails at every criteria.
Of which none of these, have anything to do with science.

Atheism, theism and agnosticism are not science, PERIOD.

They are each a different position in theology, relating to the existence or nonexistence of any deity...so none of them are positions in science.

Science is a tool of acquiring knowledge through observations and experiments - hence the knowledge will -

(A) either be tested false and therefore the hypothesis is improbable and refuted,

(B) or be tested true and therefore have the probability of being verified and validated the hypothesis.​

There is a third possible outcome or (C), where there are no evidences whatsoever, good or bad, hence “absence of evidences”. With the absence of evidences result, the hypothesis should be treated the same as false, therefore refuted and should be discarded, like point (A).

Creationism (including the Intelligent Design BS) frequently falls under the (C) category, and be branded as pseudoscience and should be treated as being no better than fables and fairytale.

Creationism, like theism, atheism and agnosticism, has nothing to do with science.,
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
My mistake - ontological naturalism. Regardless, atheism does not imply any sort of naturalism.

Any worldview that does not include any gods is an atheist worldview, whether it's a "naturalistic" worldview or not.
Based on this response I believe it is a disagreement and not a misrepresentation.
 
Top