Science and atheism inconsistent?

[gnostic]

He perfectly states my beliefs.

That because atheism is only concern with the matter of theism, hence the existence of god or gods.

There are no mention in atheism with regarding to science whatsoever.

Atheism don’t question science, because science is not atheism’s concern.

Science also don’t take side with atheism or with theism, because both atheism and theism are irrelevant.

The whole OP is absurd, because science are unrelated to both atheism and theism.

Atanu is trying to fit a large square block into a small circular hole.

 

[atanu]

Atanu is trying to fit a large square block into a small circular hole.

The imagery is good. But I am being a reporter of view of a scientist. It seems that you have not even examined the OP.

 

[Neutral Name]

That because atheism is only concern with the matter of theism, hence the existence of god or gods.

There are no mention in atheism with regarding to science whatsoever.

Atheism don’t question science, because science is not atheism’s concern.

Science also don’t take side with atheism or with theism, because both atheism and theism are irrelevant.

The whole OP is absurd, because science are unrelated to both atheism and theism.

Atanu is trying to fit a large square block into a small circular hole.

Yet, there is quantum mechanics or physics if you prefer. It completely relates to science and in dimensions which, although not yet proven, can lead to what we now consider the spiritual.

 

[atanu]

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.

Not correct.

 

[atanu]

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

That is why we say that this view is not scientific. How can your mentally not having seen/known ‘X’ lead you to conclude absence of ‘X’?

 

[atanu]

Without having read what everyone else has said here, I have only one comment about the article's statement that

"Is it saying to much to say something doesn't exist when you have no evidence either way?"
​

By and large this is not the atheistic position. Most atheists don't say god doesn't exist, but rather that they have no reason to believe he does. In other words, it's a lack of belief in gods, not an outright denial.

If you insist that the stance ‘no reason to believe’ does not transform to ‘outright denial’, I will like to accept it.

But actually that does not happen. See below how you start denying the theist’s experience, based on your experience.

And to paraphrase the quote above:

"Is it saying to much to say something does exist when you have no evidence either way?"​

.

How do you decide for me that there is no evidence?

 

[Skwim]

If you insist that the stance ‘no reason to believe’ does not transform to ‘outright denial’, I will like to accept it.

But actually that does not happen. See below how you start denying the theist’s experience, based on your experience.



How do you decide for me that there is no evidence?

Decide "for you"? Sorry, but I'm not understanding,

.


.

 

[atanu]

I know that atheism is a belief ....,

If that is true then why is the statement ‘Science and atheism inconsistent’, wrong?

I am asking to understand.

 

[charlie sc]

If that is true then why is the statement ‘Science and atheism inconsistent’, wrong?

I am asking to understand.

The question/statement itself makes no sense or very little sense. I don’t mind describing why, if I have to. It’s far more appropriate and comprehensive to say are, “is the scientific method prone to atheism biases?” The answer is yes. No methodology is free from biases. However, the same is easily asked is the scientific method prone to theists biases? Definitely yes. For atheism, I cannot think of definite examples, but I can for theists.

Every heard of creationism?

 

[atanu]

Bob & Ray are in a desert with no water.
Ray sees a mirage....an oasis in the distance.
Bob doesn't see it.
Should Ray feel sympathy for Bob?
Nah.

It can happen the opposite way too. You may discard Kohinoor thinking it to be mere glass.

 

[atanu]

Atheism's advantage is simplicity.
Don't believe in things unevidenced.
Oh, well....sympathy beats scorn.

Can it be that you think it is simple?

It correct to neither believe nor disbelieve in things un-evidenced. But is it correct to ‘not believe’ in things in-evidenced?

 

[atanu]

Well, you got that one right. Lacking both confirming and disconfirming evidence regarding the existence of gods, we lack sufficient reason to believe that they do exist. That’s a perfectly rational position. Did you think otherwise? Do you consider it more virtuous to say, “I believe even though I have no evidence for or against”?

Lacking confirming and disconfirming evidence I will say “I have evidence neither for nor against the existence of X’.

With that understanding one will not take a positive stand against theism.

 

[atanu]

The question/statement itself makes no sense or very little sense. I don’t mind describing why, if I have to. It’s far more appropriate and comprehensive to say are, “is the scientific method prone to atheism biases?” The answer is yes.

We are simply not taking of science having atheism bias. I do not think so.

You acknowledge that ‘atheism is a belief’. So I say that a belief is not compatible with science.

 

[atanu]

Decide "for you"? Sorry, but I'm not understanding,
.

I accept your saying that you have no reason to believe. But how can you decide that I am saying “I believe” without evidence”?

 

[charlie sc]

We are simply not taking of science having atheism bias. I do not think so.

What? Did you mean talking? These sentences didn't make sense.

You acknowledge that ‘atheism is a belief’. So I say that a belief is not compatible with science.

Science is an abstraction. Science is not a person or an entity, even though many people might refer it as an anthropomorphic entity. Saying a belief is or is not compatible with science makes no sense because it's not applicable. It's like saying maths is not compatible with beliefs. It makes no sense.

 

[ChristineM]

That is why we say that this view is not scientific. How can your mentally not having seen/known ‘X’ lead you to conclude absence of ‘X’?

Who said scientific? But certainly mathematical.

The difference is i may not have seen "X" but no human has ever seen a god, totaly 100% unseen by billions of people "Your" (my) mentality has nothing to do with this fact

 

[atanu]

What? Did you mean talking? The sentences didn't make sense.

Yes. It should have been ‘talking’.

Science is an abstraction. Science is not a person or an entity, even though many people might refer it as an anthropomorphic entity.

I agree. We always mean scientific method. Dr. Marcelo talks of method only.

The point remains. You agree that atheism is a belief. Dr. Marcelo’s argument is:

“I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief.”

 

[charlie sc]

I agree. We always mean scientific method. Dr. Marcelo talks of method only.

The point remains. You agree that atheism is a belief. Dr. Marcelo’s argument is:

“I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief.”

I agree with everything except that in bold, because you don't use other beliefs in the scientific method. Therefore, the conclusion makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying atheism or theism is inconsistent with football. However, someone may be influenced(biased) by their beliefs during the methodological process. That is certainly possible. Similarly, during a football game, a referee can be influenced by their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. It should have been ‘talking’.



I agree. We always mean scientific method. Dr. Marcelo talks of method only.

The point remains. You agree that atheism is a belief. Dr. Marcelo’s argument is:

“I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief.”

do you think that a person cannot know what he believes.

 

[atanu]

Who said scientific? But certainly mathematical.

The difference is i may not have seen "X" but no human has ever seen a god, totaly 100% unseen by billions of people "Your" (my) mentality has nothing to do with this fact

Not ‘mentality’. I said ‘mentally’ meaning ‘knowing through mental-sensual apparatus’.

Two points. First. What are you looking for as God? What is your definition of God?

Second. I hold that non cognition is not evidence or proof of non existence. Everyone stops seeing/knowing self and world in deep sleep. But is the self non existent?