Does science support Atheism, positively?

[gnostic]

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

Science neither support atheism, nor theism, because science is only to explain what are observable (through verifiable testing or evidences) or through logical/mathematical models (hence the scientific proof).

Both atheism and theism relate to the question of the existence of a deity, or deities, and nothing else. One group don't believe in their existence, while the others do believe in them. This has nothing to do with science.

So strictly speaking, science is supposed to be religion-neutral, meaning, not supporting either sides.

There are no peer review or textbooks that science support either sides, so your request for one is downright silly, to the point of ignorance.

Sure there have been scientists, among the atheists, agnostics, theists or whatever group. Either you work or study science, but in no way support atheism or theism.

People who say that "science is religion" are utterly ignorant people, because they don't understand science. And equally (stupidly) ignorant for anyone to say "science is atheism". Only stupid people equate science with either one of them.

You should look at science and religion, like this. Religion is like a parent, and science is like a job or career. You can be either father or mother, and work (or don't work).

No matter what your religious belief or no belief in religion, a person become scientist if learn or work in science, as long as they leave their religious preconception behind.

But if you let your personal belief interfere with the work of science, then what you are doing (when trying to mix science and religion as one), then is no longer "science". And only stupid people think science and religion the same things.

 

[gnostic]

science showed the universe began in a creation event, not a static, steady state as atheism predicted

More baseless ignorant claim. Atheism have nothing to do with science or vice versa.

Stop making science a battleground for religion and atheism.

You are still yabbing about steady-state = atheism rubbish and big bang = religion rubbish.

No atheists today accept Fred Hoyle's steady state universe. Just because Hoyle is atheist, doesn't mean other atheists accept his long-refuted theory.

And Guy: Hoyle is just one atheist. He doesn't speak for all atheists. So stop equating Hoyle's steady-state model to atheism.

When are you going to get in your head, that Georges Lemaître wasn't the only contributor of the Big Bang. Part of Lemaître's theory has been discarded, in favor of Gamoz's hot big bang theory, because Gamoz introduced something that Lemaître himself wasn't aware of - the big bang nucleosynthesis.

The big bang nucleosynthesis is what bring all other part of the expanding universe together, as a more complete theory.

 

[paarsurrey]

You should look at science and religion, like this. Religion is like a parent, and science is like a job or career. You can be either father or mother, and work (or don't work).

I agree with it.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

There would be no plausible reason for science to address belief in the existence of God, so I don't get the point of the question.

But, the absence of empirical evidence supporting God's existence can certainly be said to positively support being without "theism".

 

[paarsurrey]

There would be no plausible reason for science to address belief in the existence of God, so I don't get the point of the question.
But, the absence of empirical evidence supporting God's existence can certainly be said to positively support being without "theism".

In other words science does not support Atheism positively. Science never allotted any discipline to find G-d.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

In other words science does not support Atheism positively. Science never allotted any discipline to find G-d.
Regards

Science doesn't address unfalsifiable claims such as the existence of God. It would be a complete waste of time.

 

[viole]

Science never allotted any discipline to find G-d.
Regards

Yes, and probably this is one of the reasons why it works so well.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Science doesn't address unfalsifiable claims such as the existence of God. It would be a complete waste of time.

Hence Atheists should not use science in support of their claims that G-d does not exist.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Hence Atheists should not use science in support of their claims that G-d does not exist.
Regards

I don't see why they would. Maybe a lack of evidence, though.

 

[viole]

Hence Atheists should not use science in support of their claims that G-d does not exist.
Regards

I can only speak for myself. Atheists do not use science to claim that God does not exist, they use science to claim that the arguments for the existence of God are not sufficient to prove His existence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I can only speak for myself. Atheists do not use science to claim that God does not exist, they use science to claim that the arguments for the existence of God are not sufficient to prove His existence.

Yes, or to point out that the arguments put forward for God's existence aren't scientific, rather they are based on faith and belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science neither support atheism, nor theism, because science is only to explain what are observable (through verifiable testing or evidences) or through logical/mathematical models (hence the scientific proof).

... so God is not "observable through verifiable testing or evidences"?

Are you saying that anyone who claims something that would contradict this (e.g. miracles, revelation) is necessarily wrong?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Omg. So I used a feminine pronoun where most might use a male. They're both correct. Get over it, get used to the idea that one is equally legitimate as the other.

Also a little perturbed that you presume to tell me what prospective I "should" have. I've got one all of my own, thanks very much. And I certainly don't need one from someone who seems to take exception to the word "she"

Still seems strange to me. You are out to impress I think.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I can only speak for myself. Atheists do not use science to claim that God does not exist, they use science to claim that the arguments for the existence of God are not sufficient to prove His existence.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, they do have to be careful how they word their speeches dont' they...yet I have heard Dawkins say, "There is no god". So go figure. Perhaps it depends on whose listening.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, or to point out that the arguments put forward for God's existence aren't scientific, rather they are based on faith and belief.

But faith is based on proof, that is within, and not physical. So faith is the evidence. Not sufficient for a non believer of course, which is why it works so well.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

..yet I have heard Dawkins say, "There is no god". .

Saint Dawkins is never wrong, so that proves God doesn't exist. We'll have to find something else to discuss.

 

[Robert.Evans]

... so God is not "observable through verifiable testing or evidences"?

Are you saying that anyone who claims something that would contradict this (e.g. miracles, revelation) is necessarily wrong?

That is assuming that God is not everything we see around us and somehow must be separate to what we see in order to somehow exist.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Saint Dawkins is never wrong, so that proves God doesn't exist. We'll have to find something else to discuss.

Never wrong in his own mind perhaps ;

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But faith is based on proof, that is within, and not physical. So faith is the evidence. Not sufficient for a non believer of course, which is why it works so well.

So what does this internal "proof" look like? A feeling?

 

[viole]

Yeah, they do have to be careful how they word their speeches dont' they...yet I have heard Dawkins say, "There is no god". So go figure. Perhaps it depends on whose listening.

I wonder if you noticed my remark that I can only speak for myself. I like almost everything of Dawkins, with the possible exception of his choice of neckties. But I am not him, so I cannot possibly use science to prove that God, and a multitude of things without evidence, do not exist. I am not even sure he does that, since he is not 100% sure that God or gods do not exist either.

But i can use science and rational analysis to destroy every argument intended to prove that God exists (different from proving that He does not).

So, show me your evidence and let us see what is left after rational analysis.

Ciao

- viole