• 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?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, that's just foolish misapplication and misunderstanding.
It (properly) refers to an acquired process of external spiritual knowledge relating to metaphysics and philosophy. The best likening I can give you that you *might* get, would be Shamanism.
A Gnostic is not an armchair book reader, it is a seeker of altered states and the whole nine yards (irregardless of religion or tradition, in the sense that Gnostic traditions have continued to emerge throughout the mystical traditions of all religions.......)
A Gnostic is someone that you (as the materialist you are) would refer to as a crackpot, you'd probably see them on the level as a New Ager or something.

No, that is not the case. The definitions of words change over time. It may not match your preferred usage, but there is no official definition of the word.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Would you mind expounding on this? I don't know how someone can choose to believe.
Easy, just take responsibility for it. Once you realize that everything you think is real and true is just an internal conceptual matrix that you use to make sense of your experience of being, you can let go of the presumption that it is or must be truth, itself. It is, in fact, an elaborate opinion that you are constantly having to alter to accommodate new experiences. There is no "truth" in it, there is only functional and dysfunctional opinion (just like in science).

The question regarding "God" then becomes, does the idea of "God" work for you, or doesn't it? And the answer will depend on what you need and expect your idea of "God" to do for you, and if you can develop an idealization for yourself that can respond positively to those needs and expectations.
Sure, though on plato stanford it says, ""It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”." perhaps something believed would be more appropriate?
There is belief as faith, and belief as pretense. I find belief as pretense to be somewhat dishonest, and arrogant, so I tend to avoid that form of belief. Mostly because my life has taught me that dishonesty invites disaster. Belief as faith, however, I find to be both humble and helpful. It provides possibilities that can't be accessed otherwise, without the dishonesty and arrogance that invites difficulty.
Lol well this is just a guess. They may mean something significantly deeper, but that would be the same as someone high thinking they're thinking of deep things. Let's assume they are actually thinking of something deeper, then it'll be impossible to know. As an observation, this argument could be used for anyone, even the atheist :p
How 'deeply' can one reject a whole realm of possibility? ;)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There is no "knowing" when it comes to atheism. Atheism is a belief.


The "gnostic atheist" is the most absurd meme that has infected the early 21st Century with illogic, and I hope someday it dies a horrible death.
*polite curtsy*
No, for most atheists it is only a lack of belief.. There is a difference.

And gnostic in that usage reflects how sure the person is in their belief, that is all. Once again, the definitions and usages of words change over time. Look up the meaning of "homely" a few hundred years ago.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Archaeological evidence is physical (objective in some way). Without objectivity all you have is faith

That is not the issue. Simply facts determines that Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify any hypothesis that proposes the existence nor non-existence of God(s).
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Easy, just take responsibility for it.
Lol I'll take responsibility for something, if it is even applicable, when it makes sense to do so.

Once you realize that everything you think is real and true is just an internal conceptual matrix that you use to make sense of your experience of being, you can let go of the presumption that it is or must be truth, itself. It is, in fact, an elaborate opinion that you are constantly having to alter to accommodate new experiences. There is no "truth" in it, there is only functional and dysfunctional opinion (just like in science).

The question regarding "God" then becomes, does the idea of "God" work for you, or doesn't it? And the answer will depend on what you need and expect your idea of "God" to do for you, and if you can develop an idealization for yourself that can respond positively to those needs and expectations.
This looks like nonsense. You're jumping from one idea to another when, it seems, you cannot answer my question.

How 'deeply' can one reject a whole realm of possibility? ;)
You did not address what I said. I find this form of deflection incredibly intellectually dishonest.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
That is not the issue. Simply facts determines that Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify any hypothesis that proposes the existence nor non-existence of God(s).

So where is this evidence for the existence of god. I am pretty sure if it existed it would be right up there with the wonders of the world.

As it stands we still have several evidences that show specific aspects of gods cannot exist.

For example no omnipotent god is possible given that matter exists
A caring god is such a weird concept given all the suffering that exists (unnecessarily if such a god was a reality)
What creator god would possibly create a prize creation to worship him/her/it and creat an insect or a virus to kill that prize creation
 

ecco

Veteran Member
So when I say that the atheist has no evidence, I mean that by the atheist's own conceptual requirement of "objective evidence", he can have no evidence. Of course he could have subjective evidence, as we all can and do, but because he refuses to acknowledge subjective evidence as valid (true) evidence, he then has none.
What are you talking about? When all else fails, set up a strawman and then burn it down.

Where do you get that atheists have a conceptual requirement of "objective evidence"?

Where have you seen me refuse to acknowledge subjective evidence as valid (true) evidence?

Nevertheless, instead of making sweeping statements, why not try to dispute and counter the actual arguments I made.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
People on the whole seem to an unlimited capacity
for self deception.

If some glory in it, and can believe six impossible
things before breakfast, that is their deal.

Choosing to believe is self deception.

"Faith" is self deception, when applied to such as god,
but, to the theos it is a highest and purest virtue.

I was taught to be on guard against indulging
in self deception.

The theos are taught to glory in it, and, apparently,
to think it is the human condition such that those
not infected with god-ism are deliberately choosing
not to believe-generally out of foolishness, or base
and ignoble (self indulgent) motives.

But what is it that motivates thread after thread devoted
to attacking atheists as variously immoral, illogical,
etc?

You said a few things here. Indeed, I agree with some of it :)
 
Apart from the obvious, "Then where did god come from?" question (And no special pleading) have you read this...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00838F4IE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

That tends to disagree with your statement
I read the book by Krauss, and what he does in this book is call "something" nothing. Period. The nothing that he's saying that the universe started from is actually SOMETHING, he just redefines what nothing means, which is hilarious to say the least.

"He is starting with the existence of quantum fields that behave in a certain manner and suggesting that matter arises out of arrangements of these fields. But he is still presuming the fields and the laws that govern their existence, which is a far cry from nothing. Nothing" would mean not only the absence of particulate matter but the absence of the fields as well. Nothing means nothing. Period."[1]

David Albert, professor of philosophy at Columbia and director of the M.A. Program in the Philosophical Foundations of Physics , in his critique of Krauss's book, stated:

"The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing." [2]

1. Unam Sanctum Catholicam
2. David Albert, ‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss [accessed 9 Oct. 2012]
 
Do you believe in fairies, unicorns, Russell's Flying Teapot...I assume not. Well there is the same evidence for them as there is for the existence of god(s).
I think the definition of proof and evidence is being misunderstood.
There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God(Yahweh of the Bible), whether that evidence constitutes as proof is in the mind of the evaluator. For example, Evolutionist and Creationist look at the same evidence concerning life on this planet. Yet the creationist sees the evidence as proof that God exists, and the evolutionist sees the evidence as random chance acting upon matter without the need for a creator. Same evidence, different conclusions.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Logically? All things with a beginning need a cause. Things with no beginning do not.

That is not logic, that is apologetics. You define your god as having no beginning just so you can state he is without cause. It's a cute run-around but it is completely bogus.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
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.
In your humble opinion.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Choosing to believe is self deception.

I thought this too in some sense. There are some studies on self-deception that I looked at about a year ago.
I find it very interesting that someone can hold two contradictory beliefs but believe the sub-optimal one over the optimal. This may not be a conscious act though.
I need to contemplate and research it a bit more, but I hypothesise that theists, who know religion is based off faith, self-deceive if they also think it's based off evidence. I can point you to some papers on self-deception if you want, but it'll only be interesting if it's something you fancy and want to go in-depth :p
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I think the definition of proof and evidence is being misunderstood.
There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God(Yahweh of the Bible), whether that evidence constitutes as proof is in the mind of the evaluator. For example, Evolutionist and Creationist look at the same evidence concerning life on this planet. Yet the creationist sees the evidence as proof that God exists, and the evolutionist sees the evidence as random chance acting upon matter without the need for a creator. Same evidence, different conclusions.

I think the meaning of evidence is being deliberately misrepresented

Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Given that definition and the fact there is no fact and no information for a gods existence then i would say there is no evidence for a gods existence

However if you take evidence to mean mythical tails from a bronze age book written by essential anonymous authors with no provenance that you think are real, then you have a point


Same evidence confirmed by observation and the scientific method
Or same evidence confirmed by god magic and faith

Evolution is shown to be a naturally occuring process by several different scientific fields

I'll take reality every time.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
There is no "knowing" when it comes to atheism. Atheism is a belief.
I don't think you understand atheists. You certainly don't understand me.

I suggest you read my post #106 if you are interested in understanding (my) atheism.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
But his point was that that is "proof" rather than evidence. And he's right. Evidence is simply facts or information that point at a conclusion.
 
Top