Science and atheism inconsistent?

[Altfish]

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.

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).

 

[Subduction Zone]

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).

He appears to be conflating hard atheism with all atheism.

 

[PureX]

Your post is not very clear, but atheism is quite defensible.

Not on evidence, there is none. Not on functional value, there is none. And not on honest open-mindedness because that's been rejected by definition. So one what, then?

 

[PureX]

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 agree that there is no evidence for or against the existence of gods. I stated that in my above post. But at least theism can provide a positive purpose. And agnosticism can claim honest open-mindedness. But atheism can claim none of these. It's a pointless, unfounded bias, that closes off the mind to other possibilities. That's it. It has no defense, which is why so few atheists will admit that they are atheists, when pressed, and instead pretend to be agnostics.

 

[Audie]

Being human is inconsistent with a science-only view of reality.

Ah the grim and apocryphal spectre of scientism
yet again surfaces to let forth a rancid fart, then
return to the obscure depth whence we hope
it shall no more be so unseemly summened.

 

[Altfish]

I agree that there is no evidence for or against the existence of gods. I stated that in my above post. But at least theism can provide a positive purpose. And agnosticism can claim honest open-mindedness. But atheism can claim none of these. It's a pointless, unfounded bias, that closes off the mind to other possibilities. That's it.

Atheism claims to be nothing.
Apart from a lack of belief in gods.
It is purely a definition, I know what people mean when they say that they are an atheist, to be honest I occasionally call my self an atheist because people understand what it mean as opposed to Humanist or Secularist.

 

[atanu]

From the article:

"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 don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.' And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about."

This seems a bit incoherent. Maybe his ideas couldn't be captured by a short article but I'm not sure from that quote that he has a better grasp of the matter than the average RFer.

Well. Most RFers, imo, have coherent ideas as per their world view, which however evolves all the time.

In this case, a scientist is quoted, since atheists always seem to imply that their view is nothing but scientific.

It is a different matter that science and scientific method does not penetrate the subjective reality of “I am”.

 

[atanu]

The two subjects are not inherently related.

Yes. But many atheists claim to own science and scientific method.

 

[bobhikes]

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

My statement says nothing about god only that something has always existed. At minimum the potential for something to exist had to always exist.

Many people write books just because a book is published doesnt make it fact. I just finished reading Stephen Hawkins last book most asked questions(I’m in DMV right now) and it didn’t sway me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not on evidence, there is none. Not on functional value, there is none. And not on honest open-mindedness because that's been rejected by definition. So one what, then?

I'm just putting it out there that there is a distinct difference between 'absence of evidence' and 'evidence of absence.'

 

[atanu]

Atanu, mon brave

I hope all things are good at your place.

He's right that there can be no absolute statement 'X, clearly defined and said to be a real thing, does not exist'. (There can however be a valid statement, 'We have no reason to think X exists in reality', which is what most atheists say.)

However, we need a sufficient definition of a real X such that if we found X in reality we could determine that it was X. If there is no such definition, then we never get to the point of making meaningful statements about X, because we don't know what we're actually talking about.

Thank you .

You are, as usual, precise. But only point on which we seem to never able to agree is: The mode of testability of a definition of ‘X’.

 

[Windwalker]

Ah the grim and apocryphal spectre of scientism
yet again surfaces to let forth a rancid fart, then
return to the obscure depth whence we hope
it shall no more be so unseemly summened.

Yes. I know. Everytime someone asks "Where's your evidence" for things like God, Scientism squeeks out yet another of it's fallacious smelly ones.

 

[Altfish]

My statement says nothing about god only that something has always existed. At minimum the potential for something to exist had to always exist.

Many people write books just because a book is published doesn't make it fact. I just finished reading Stephen Hawkins last book most asked questions(I’m in DMV right now) and it didn’t sway me.

But you are just going back one extra, unnecessary step.
I didn't say the book was fact; I was just disputing your assertion

 

[charlie sc]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

Why don’t you offer some commentary?

 

[PureX]

Atheism claims to be nothing.
Apart from a lack of belief in gods.
It is purely a definition, I know what people mean when they say that they are an atheist, to be honest I occasionally call my self an atheist because people understand what it mean as opposed to Humanist or Secularist.

Atheism is a philosophical choice based on nothing but a pointless and useless bias. How intently, or when, you or anyone else chooses to adopt that position is their own business, and is irrelevant to the definition of atheism.

 

[Altfish]

Atheism is a philosophical choice based on nothing but a pointless and useless bias. How intently, or when, you or anyone else chooses to adopt that position is their own business, and is irrelevant to the definition of atheism.

No, totally disagree.
There is no bias about it... just a total lack of evidence

 

[Windwalker]

Atheism claims to be nothing.

Then why the self-identification with an "ism"?

Apart from a lack of belief in gods.

So there is something it claims then. Apart from this one claim it claims nothing else then? Does it have evidence to support that rather large single claim?

It is purely a definition, I know what people mean when they say that they are an atheist, to be honest I occasionally call my self an atheist because people understand what it mean as opposed to Humanist or Secularist.

It's not purely a definition. It's a self-identification. That's huge. That's about a whole worldview, sort of thing, like someone would say they were a Christian.

 

[PureX]

I'm just putting it out there that there is a distinct difference between 'absence of evidence' and 'evidence of absence.'

There is no difference at all when the expectation of evidence cannot be established. And in the case of the existence of gods, that certainly cannot be established. It can't even be defined. We can't even really conceptualize the idea of "God" without using myths and metaphors and symbols and various other forms of artifice.

 

[wellwisher]

As a young scientist, who began as a Catholic and become an Agnostic in High School and College, I approached the debate between theism and atheism in a way that was different from most. Although there was no direct science proof of God; lab tests, we nevertheless observe millions of people who believe this to be true. As an Agnostic this was innate to me. This second observation; why do millions believe, was a valid subject of science inquiry.

The logical question became, what makes religious people tick certain way? This then comes down to what makes anyone tick, their way?

For example, why does a transsexual firmly believe, what they believe, even if others deny this? Why are atheists willing to accept transexual, if this theoretically comes from the same basic source, but yet why cannot they accept a religious output? In other words, if something is felt as being an innate part of a person, why does the atheist only taboo certain output, but not all output? Does the same internal source also define the faith of the atheist? And does this innate thing feel stronger, as a function of group prestige?

Progressives can believe and accept an internal and/or innate source for the transsexual, even though this source is saying something different from the biological body. Why is it harder to accept if someone believes in a spiritual orientation instead of sexual orientation, that also differs from the biological body? Form and function are at odds in both cases. Why not treat both the same?

This line of reasoning led to learning about how consciousness and the mind works, since as humans, we have all have the same firmware, but differ in our innate outputs. My unique research involved inducing the firmware internally, so I could self observe and record the output from the inside. The inside data, you cannot obtain, using the traditional external science approach.

For example, pain management cannot be decided based on results from analytical instruments. There is no machine that can quantize pain for all individuals. Doctors only use these tools to define the source. After the source is defined and confirmed, they depend on internally generated data of the individual. The ask the patient to define their level of pain. This is based on internal data, they observe using feedback from sensory nerves.

The brain firmware, that define human nature and our propensities are the same way. There is feedback into the body and brain. This shows up, i apart, as nerve feedback that one can learn to interpret; gut feeling. Internal data is the best source for innate consciousness data. One cannot read the mind of the transsexual, with an machine to make sure this is innate. We have to ask them to give us their first hand data, from within. We may then try to corroborate this data using with body language and machines.

God experiences are things we get as internal data. These will not show up externally, on machines, except in rare cases. It is these experiences, projected or otherwise sensed internally; feeling, that is the common link among the faithful. It appears this data is more available in certain people based on firmware hierarchy.

 

[charlie sc]

Is anyone here an atheist towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Therefore, are you inconsistent with science?