• 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?

PureX

Veteran Member
No, totally disagree.
There is no bias about it... just a total lack of evidence
When there is no reason, no purpose, and no possibility, bias is all that's left. And if you disagree, please feel free to illuminate me on what that other justification would be.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Why don’t you offer some commentary?

:D

You know the internet space in India? You question a single action of the rightist king and you get trolled many thousand times. IMO, bookish atheists are not less capable than the Modi brigade. So, therefore....
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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 do not believe in bigfoot, flying saucers, Atlantis,
Batboy, wild tigers yet roaming the hills of Hong Kong,
or various other such. If someone wants evidence
for their absence, let them so entertain themselves.
"Honest, open minded" idiots may be particularly
drawn to it

"Theists"of course think that their "god" is in
some special category of non existence such
that hard evidence that it is not there is demanded.

You may be one of those who actually can choose to believe
whatever you choose.

Now me, I do, or, I do not believe. I am not into
self deception which is what your choice is.

How deception of any sort is honest, I will leave
to the "philosophers" for whom such is the substance
of thought.

Perhaps there is "functional value" in such trivial
pursuits. I will leave that for the philosophers to
derive nourishment from it.

The theist / philosoper always and
anon shows that they simply cannot cenceive of
how to think like someone who does not base
their thinking on the purported existence of "god".

Anyone not like them is, after all, defined by them
as closed minded and dishonest.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

There most certainly is from an objective standpoint of human perception in relative reality. While it cannot be concluded from an objective standpoint in relative reality that "there is no evidence of God," it can most certainly be concluded in the same that there is an absence of evidence of the existence of God in any conceptualization.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
When there is no reason, no purpose, and no possibility, bias is all that's left. And if you disagree, please feel free to illuminate me on what that other justification would be.

From what shelf do you pluck this remarable fact?
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
:D

You know the internet space in India? You question a single action of the rightist king and you get trolled many thousand times. IMO, bookish atheists are not less capable than the Modi brigade. So, therefore....

So you’re trolling bookish rightist atheists :p

I don’t understand why my atheist compadres would argue against, well, nothing.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
And from here, we enter the realm of the philosopher, wherein we begin to question and study the relative truthfulness of these various subjective internal memes that we humans tend to generate. Which then drives us to question what "truth" is. Is it a human conception of reality? Is it some aspect of reality that includes human perception/conception yet stretched far beyond it? How could we know? And so on, and so on.

Science is all well and good, but without art, and philosophy, and religion, we would have no way of questing beyond the realm of physical functionality. Don't get me wrong, understanding physical functionality is a very good and useful understanding to possess, and to pursue, but in the grand scheme of things, it comes up very short of the goal that we humans seem to be striving for.

Just sayin'.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Even though I am a theist, I agree, his argument is based on theist assumptions, and not grounded in scientific methods, because the Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify theories and hypothesis beyond the objective verifiable evidence. Atheism is consistent with the Methodological Naturalism

He is also grooselly over stating the claims of atheists concerning the existence or non-existence of God.

In reality the traditional claims of theism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are horrendously weak as stand alone religions, based on the lack of provenance of their scriptures, historical context, supernatural claims, and consistency in terms of science.

He is claiming a anecdotal subjective claim for the existence of God with a vague generalization to justify theism.
Well said.

Using the quoted passage we could say that he is also implicitly arguing that theism and science are inconsistent. In either case he'd be wrong as far as I can tell.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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. :)

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.

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.

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?



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

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Do you appreciate what I mean by bookish?
I appreciate it worked. You got a bunch of atheists to argue against an article, not you. Where, the article can’t reciprocate, nor is it necessarily a good article, but you got them to read it and you’re under no obligation to defend it or that you even agree with it. o_O
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There most certainly is from an objective standpoint of human perception in relative reality. While it cannot be concluded from an objective standpoint in relative reality that "there is no evidence of God," it can most certainly be concluded in the same that there is an absence of evidence of the existence of God in any conceptualization.
That's nonsense.

I have a cold. I pray to my God to be relieved of my cold. The cold goes away. I have evidence of my God's existence and concern for my well-being for me, ... just as I'd expected.
I have a cold, I don't pray to god for relief because I don't believe that god exists or will relieve me of a cold. My cold runs it's course, but then goes away, ... just as I expected.

Evidence is subjectively identified and determined because reality is subjectively experience and defined. "God" is a conceptual paradigm for theists, like scientific materialism (scientism) is for atheists. They each generate their own "evidence", or lack thereof, by the way they cause their adherents to understand and experience their own existence.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member

Yerda

Veteran Member
That's nonsense.

I have a cold. I pray to my God to be relieved of my cold. The cold goes away. I have evidence of my God's existence and concern for my well-being for me, ... just as I'd expected.
If you replace God with Jim the Magic Fairy would the relief of a cold still be evidence for his existence and benevolence?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
They mostly don't not want to, because if they did, they would find it indefensible. And that would curtail their ability to attack the choices of others.

Nope.
*shakes head*

The box (or label) is merely a means of describing a person. The person does not need to neatly fit in the box.

I'm an agnostic atheist precisely because I'd readily admit I don't have proof there is no God. However, there is evidence that many of the Gods worshipped by men don't exist.
That evidence is subjective, just as some Christians could argue there is evidence for their beliefs.

I find God unlikely. Agnostic atheism seems a more appropriate way to shorthand my beliefs than any other.
It has nothing to do with purpose, nor in positioning to enable a more easy attack on beliefs.

Most atheists aren't anti-theists, although I'll admit there's some skewing on the interwebz...
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
That's nonsense.

I have a cold. I pray to my God to be relieved of my cold. The cold goes away. I have evidence of my God's existence and concern for my well-being for me, ... just as I'd expected.
I have a cold, I don't pray to god for relief because I don't believe that god exists or will relieve me of a cold. My cold runs it's course, but then goes away, ... just as I expected.

Evidence is subjectively identified and determined because reality is subjectively experience and defined. "God" is a conceptual paradigm for theists, like scientific materialism (scientism) is for atheists. They each generate their own "evidence", or lack thereof, by the way they cause their adherents to understand and experience their own existence.

This works less well when you replace 'cold' with 'polio'.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
That's nonsense.

I have a cold. I pray to my God to be relieved of my cold. The cold goes away. I have evidence of my God's existence and concern for my well-being for me, ... just as I'd expected.
I have a cold, I don't pray to god for relief because I don't believe that god exists or will relieve me of a cold. My cold runs it's course, but then goes away, ... just as I expected.

Evidence is subjectively identified and determined because reality is subjectively experience and defined. "God" is a conceptual paradigm for theists, like scientific materialism (scientism) is for atheists. They each generate their own "evidence", or lack thereof, by the way they cause their adherents to understand and experience their own existence.

You were so quick to dismiss my post as nonsense that you didn't bother to attempt to understand it as made clear by your reply.

I'm not speaking of experiential evidence, empirical evidence, or subjective evidence. I was clearly discussing objective evidence.

Go back and reread my post. If you still don't understand it, please ask for an elaboration. You're doing yourself and anyone reading this a disservice by dismissing something as nonsense just because you're struggling to wrap your head around it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
And from here, we enter the realm of the philosopher, wherein we begin to question and study the relative truthfulness of these various subjective internal memes that we humans tend to generate. Which then drives us to question what "truth" is. Is it a human conception of reality? Is it some aspect of reality that includes human perception/conception yet stretched far beyond it? How could we know? And so on, and so on.

Science is all well and good, but without art, and philosophy, and religion, we would have no way of questing beyond the realm of physical functionality. Don't get me wrong, understanding physical functionality is a very good and useful understanding to possess, and to pursue, but in the grand scheme of things, it comes up very short of the goal that we humans seem to be striving for.

Just sayin'.

Just sayin'-
In the captain obvious dept.

You left out mention of how everything we do not just
science, falls short of providing all suustenance.

The goal we all strive for? What is that goal?
 
Last edited:
Top