Science and atheism inconsistent?

[Firemorphic]

but of indoctrination from birth and a fair dosage of threats of what will happen if you dare to disbelieve.

Hey, that's a bit unfair. Enough time spent around listening to atheists is enough to make someone become a theist, the rest is just minor details.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

Two major mistakes in the first sentence:

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

- atheism doesn't necessarily say "something doesn't exist."

- it's not true that we have no evidence either way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's a very wimpy approach and it completely ignores history.

No it does NOT ignore history. It ignores mythology, supposition, speculation, imagination and pure fantasy that was written to pretend to be history. And actually, sometimes wasn't even pretending to be history, but rather was allegorical and metaphorical, which credulous later readers pretend to read as history.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hey, that's a bit unfair. Enough time spent around listening to atheists is enough to make someone become a theist, the rest is just minor details.

I spend all my time around atheists, and it didn't do it for me...details or no details.

 

[74x12]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

Of course.

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

What evidence? Do you mean the stories in the Bibles that were written by anonymous people to tell morality tales and further an agenda? That evidence?

Obviously you didn't get the point of the entire post, being that you copy and pasted one sentence. Right over your head

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

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.

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

 

[shunyadragon]

E=MC2 is objective
Leukemia is objective
The mosquito and ebola virus are objective

True, but ah . . . so what?!?!?!

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the dictionary can help out your misunderstanding of my post.
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 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

The atheist will look at the falsifiable objective verifiable evidence that will apply to Methodological Naturalism, and based on the this the atheist will assume philosophical or ontological naturalism. Atheist would not try to prove things where there is no proof. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify subjective questions such as the existence nor non-existence of God(s). Ontological Naturalism as with Theism are assumptions not based on evidence nor proof.

The belief in atheism, whether true or false, is in harmony with science.

Proofs only apply to logic and math, a subset of logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The atheist will look at the falsifiable objective verifiable evidence that will apply to Methodological Naturalism, and based on the this the atheist will assume philosophical or ontological naturalism. Atheist would not try to prove things where there is no proof. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify subjective questions such as the existence nor non-existence of God(s). Ontological Naturalism as with Theism are assumptions not based on evidence nor proof.

The belief in atheism, whether true or false, is in harmony with science.

Proofs only apply to logic and math, a subset of logic.

Are atheists the only people you like to misrepresent, or is this just one expression of an overall trend?

 

[shunyadragon]

Are atheists the only people you like to misrepresent, or is this just one expression of an overall trend?

No misrepresentation on my part.

From" https://www.google.com/search?q=phi...rome..69i57.2213j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Ontological" refers to the philosophical study of the nature of being. ... These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature.

 

[Windwalker]

I can see why you'd smile at that terrific knock-
down argument. I even got a dim sort of
amusement myself, imagining you calling
"scientism" at every call for evidence on any
topic.

Why on earth would I do that? I'd never call asking for evidence when making claims about empirical data to be "Scientism".

We notice, btw, that when asked for evidence,
you theists are constantly trotting out purported
"evidence" from allegedly fulfilled prophecy
through miracle cures and on to such as clams
on Mt Everest.

Dear lord in the mythical heavens! Why on earth do you imagine I would ever, ever, at any time, cite the garbage you say? I'm far too rational for that. You must be debating with "you theists", and not me. If you're going to debate me, than make it accurate, please.

Is the problem in those who would like a reason to
believe something so outlandish as the OT "god",
or in what thin and shabby evidence,
blind faith and magical thinking
underlies the theists entire construct of reality?

None of this applies to me.

(Oh, and do, if you simply must seek out
scientism to denounce, get it straight in your
mind what it actually is?)

I know quite well what it is. Do you?

 

[Augustus]

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.

Alternatively:

"Many people today hold to a Gnostic view of things without realizing the fact. Believing that human beings can be fully understood in the terms of scientific materialism, they reject any idea of free will. But they cannot give up hope of being masters of their destiny. So they have come to believe that science will somehow enable the human mind to escape the limitations that shape its natural condition. Throughout much of the world, and particularly in western countries, the Gnostic faith that knowledge can give humans a freedom no other creature can possess has become the predominant religion."

John Gray, The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom

 

[suncowiam]

That statement makes no sense. Please look up the definition of agnosticism.

It's not based on the definition of agnosticism. It's based on the logic that agnostics use in the determination of the existence of god.

It makes no sense to you because you're not able to understand it as opposed to the statement having actual sense.

 

[atanu]

Once Prajapati, the creator of the universe announced, “The Self is the sinless, ageless and deathless One; it has no sorrow nor hunger nor thirst. The goal of all its desire is the Truth, Truth is the one thing worthy of its resolve. It is this Self that has to be sought after, it alone one should seek to know. And one who seeks after the Self and knows it, gains possessions of all the worlds, wins all that is desirable.”
​

Ah me. This asserts without demonstration that a sentient being created the universe, and that 'sin' is an objective quality rather than a human situational construct, and that something called 'Truth' exists but offers no test that will identify it, and ...

Our paths to understanding are quite distinct.

Fortunately we have our humanity in common.

I am afraid that you did not get it or you are intentionally confounding the issue. You asked for a definition of God.

In the passage which you have reproduced, Prajapati (brahmA) is defining God. I have done same “That Thou Art”.

 

[atanu]

- it's not true that we have no evidence either way.

Explain please.

 

[blü 2]

I am afraid that you did not get it or you are intentionally confounding the issue. You asked for a definition of God.

In the passage which you have reproduced, Prajapati (brahmA) is defining God. I have done same “That Thou Art”.

But if God is real, not just imaginary, then God must have a real description; if we come upon a real suspect, the description must be sufficient for us to tell whether our suspect is in fact God or not.

Many purported descriptions depend on what God can do, like create the universe; but that tells us nothing about God as an entity. Maybe in another few decades there won't be a child in high school who hasn't created a real universe for homework.

What is God in reality? What is God's appearance? Does [he] require food, and if so what, or if [he] doesn't, what provides [him] with the energy necessary for life? Does [he] have DNA or something analogous to it? Does [he] breed? How? If [he] doesn't, how did [he] evolve? Does [he] have sensory organs and a brain? Are they like ours? If not, how do they differ and how do they work?

A related problem is that there's no concept of godhood ─ the real quality a real god has and a false (real) claimant lacks. For instance, if God is just a superscientist, a sort of Mark II human, let's call [him] that. If God has objective qualities that distinguish [him] from a superscientist, what are those real qualities? That is, what is godhood?

No one seems to know. I certainly don't.

You understand the answers in the Upanishad. They simply don't address the questions that seem to me most relevant. I understand the outlines of science and evolution and skeptical and reasoned enquiry. They simply don't address the questions that seem to you most relevant. I have a concept of truth that is based on correspondence with objective reality. You have a concept of Truth as something that is taught, and which neither has nor requires a test to authenticate its status. (Please correct me if my phrasing misrepresents your views.)

If it were otherwise, the world would be a duller place.

 

[atanu]

But if God is real, not just imaginary, then God must have a real description; if we come upon a real suspect, the description must be sufficient for us to tell whether our suspect is in fact God or not.

Many purported descriptions depend on what God can do, like create the universe; but that tells us nothing about God as an entity. Maybe in another few decades there won't be a child in high school who hasn't created a real universe for homework.

What is God in reality? What is God's appearance? Does [he] require food, and if so what, or if [he] doesn't, what provides [him] with the energy necessary for life? Does [he] have DNA or something analogous to it? Does [he] breed? How? If [he] doesn't, how did [he] evolve? Does [he] have sensory organs and a brain? Are they like ours? If not, how do they differ and how do they work?

A related problem is that there's no concept of godhood ─ the real quality a real god has and a false (real) claimant lacks. For instance, if God is just a superscientist, a sort of Mark II human, let's call [him] that. If God has objective qualities that distinguish [him] from a superscientist, what are those real qualities? That is, what is godhood?

No one seems to know. I certainly don't.

You understand the answers in the Upanishad. They simply don't address the questions that seem to me most relevant. I understand the outlines of science and evolution and skeptical and reasoned enquiry. They simply don't address the questions that seem to you most relevant. I have a concept of truth that is based on correspondence with objective reality. You have a concept of Truth as something that is taught, and which neither has nor requires a test to authenticate its status. (Please correct me if my phrasing misrepresents your views.)

If it were otherwise, the world would be a duller place.

As per Vedanta the following is the highest.

“The Self is the sinless, ageless and deathless One; it has no sorrow nor hunger nor thirst. The goal of all its desire is the Truth, Truth is the one thing worthy of its resolve. It is this Self that has to be sought after, it alone one should seek to know. And one who seeks after the Self and knows it, gains possessions of all the worlds, wins all that is desirable.”​

And it is our self. It is the most immediate and undeniable. But it is also a fact that mind does not know the self. Like one has to eat a mango to know it fully, one needs to “Know one’s self by one's self”.

You yourself say that you do not know everything. Do you know your self? Yet you are quick to dismiss the upanishad?

Leaving aside the self that is being pointed to as the very God, we are trying to denigrate the self by looking at its objects. Self is not an object that one can grasp physically or mentally. One is it. But its truth is buried under mental forms of waking, dreaming and sleeping.
....

Alas. I resign again. Namaste.

 

[blü 2]

As per Vedanta the following is the highest.

“The Self is the sinless, ageless and deathless One; it has no sorrow nor hunger nor thirst. The goal of all its desire is the Truth, Truth is the one thing worthy of its resolve. It is this Self that has to be sought after, it alone one should seek to know. And one who seeks after the Self and knows it, gains possessions of all the worlds, wins all that is desirable.”

And it is your self. Like one has to eat a mango to know it fully, one needs to “Know one’s self”.

All your questions are imaginary and outward pointed. Leaving aside the Self that is being pointed to as the very God, you are trying to denigrate self by looking at its objects. Self is not an object that you can grasp physically or mentally.

....

Alas. I resign again. Namaste

The world would be a dull place if everyone agreed.

As always, thanks for the conversation.

 

[atanu]

The world would be a dull place if everyone agreed.

As always, thanks for the conversation.

I did a little editing to my post to highlight that we cannot dispatch the upanishad to the trash can, because we do not know our own self, which it declares as the truth.