Science and atheism inconsistent?

[charlie sc]

I wonder if creationism is compatible with science?

It must have been difficult getting all those dinosaurs onto that boat

 

[shunyadragon]

But science isn’t a question about existence or nonexistence of god, therefore theism and atheism are both irrelevant to science.

Refresher on the English language, Atheism being consistent with science has nothing to do with the question of the existence nor non-existence of God.

For example: Fundamentalist Christian beliefs that reject evolution and physics and cosmology of billions of years of the history of natural life, the earth, the universe is inconsistent with science, and has nothing to with whether God exists or not.

From: https://www.google.com/search?ei=s4...31j0i67j35i39i70i249j0i10i67j0i10.dUeeacNtPeg
Consistent - compatible or in agreement with something.
"the injuries are consistent with falling from a great height"
synonyms: compatible, congruous, agreeing, accordant, consonant, in harmony, harmonious, in tune, in line, reconcilable, of a piece;

 

[Willamena]

I wonder if creationism is compatible with science?

It must have been difficult getting all those dinosaurs onto that boat

That was awesome! Thanks for posting that.

 

[gnostic]

Refresher on the English language, Atheism being consistent with science has nothing to do with the question of the existence nor non-existence of God.

No, shunyadragon. You are talking about individual “atheists” or group of “atheists” who might or might not accept science.

But “atheism” itself says nothing about science, one way or the other; it neither agree or disagree with science.

You are talking about people who called themselves “atheists”, and those atheists who accept science.

Sure, a majority of atheists around the world, accept science.

But I can name some of my cousins, who are atheists, but in the business of sales, marketing, finance or accounting, they have no interest in science, wouldn’t understand the concepts of the Big Bang cosmology, particle physics or biological evolution. My cousins don’t understand science, so they neither agree or disagree with various fields of science.

Their positions regarding to science, is they feel it is irrelevant to them; they simply lack the necessary education to understand science, therefore they take no position in which they accept or reject it.

That to me, is where atheists (not atheism itself) are inconsistent with science.

Of course, there are far more atheists who do accept science.

I think the way the author worded the OP, by what they meant by "consistency" is not explained well.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Your previous description of those that believe differently than you as a cult is very revealing of your hostile agenda.

The topic "Science and Atheism inconsistent?", assumes a false premise or just begging the question. Especially, since there is no clearly defined exclusive/inclusive, inverse/converse connection between Atheism and Science. However, it is based only on the tenets of science that justify any belief that nothing supernatural can, or does exist. We would have the same results if we asked, are "Checkers and science inconsistent?", or, are "Theism and science inconsistent?". Both questions are logically invalid without establishing a specific connection first(evidence). This is similar to asking the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?", without first demonstrating that the premise has been clearly established first. Now let's move on to see why the context of your discourse, is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

You claim that you should not have the burden of proof, to present factual objective evidence to defend your claims of prophesy, or the existence of any supernatural entities/deities/messengers. You are in denial, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simply quoting what someone else believes that someone else believes, is not even close to extraordinary evidence. This is wrong, since the burden of proof is certainly your responsibility. Otherwise, all claims will become objectively valid, regardless if the claims are rational, irrational, real, or imaginary. In other words, once you discredit science with philosophical obfuscations, then fairy tales, myths, and God beliefs can now exist in reality.

You have portrayed and characterized all those that disagree, or question, your cultist/religious worldview(especially Atheists), as being hostile, materialistic, village idiots, egocentric, insulting, atrocious, victims of Atheism, unable to understand big words, Pantheists, hated, unintelligent, mistrusted, spiritless, soulless, damned, incoherent(#479), venomous and vindictive(#478), splitting anal frog hairs(#494), ranters, require meds(#499), anal retentive and spelling Nazis(#500), out of touch, mentally unstable(#538), and arrogant(#542). I believe that your actions accurately reflect your reasoning, whether you accept or admit it our not. This is one of the differences between skeptical thinkers and cultist thinkers.

You even misrepresent half truths. For example, you assert that most logic is most often not based on facts and evidence. Of course you specifically meant only the logic under the heading of "Philosophical Logic"(#257). Again misleading and deceptive.

You avoid answering specific questions by many posters, by using any intellectually dishonest means necessary. Especially, any questions asking for objective verifiable evidence, that requires more than just taking your word for it. Hence, whenever you are cornered with questions you can't quote, copy and paste from your selected list of responses, you are reduced to simply repeating what the poster said, word for word. You also deny, denigrate, demonize, vilify, or dismiss any accusation without any supporting evidence. Or worst than all, simply keep repeating your same words just to annoy the posters, so they would just go away.

Also, you cannot use naturalism(ontological, methodological, etc., post #310) to control or manipulate people. Only religions can do that. The true basis for all forms of naturalism, is "Metaphysical Naturalism". That is if you really are interested in finding the truth about reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3so02NW6_Q

You also make the silly assertion that science is consistent and compatible with Atheism(#346). Since Atheist disbelieve in the existence of any deity, because of the total lack of evidence, that would imply that science also disbelieves in the existence of any Deities. But science cannot falsify, or verify the existence of any deities. Hence, if evidence did exist, science would not be compatible with Atheism.

You love to make glib, insensitive, sarcastic, inciteful, egotistic, divisive, and other literal artifices, to give your cultist nonsense the appearance of credibility and exclusivity. In reality, it is just another empty culturally-specific belief system, preying on the hopes, ignorance and fears of the vulnerable and those that can't defend themselves.

Claiming that God created Abiogenesis and Evolution is scientifically rational, but God creating Eve from Adam is unscientific, only demonstrates your lack of understanding of logical fallacies(Ignorance and begging the question, #515). Again, more intellectual dishonesty.

This is a religious forum. Therefore, your beliefs and opinions are certainly germane and relevant to the nature and purpose of this forum. Since more than 90% of the forum is devoted to religious ideologies, discussions, and opinions/debates, may I suggest that you might share your beliefs with these other threads. They might be more responsive, and amenable in accommodating your particular beliefs. But regarding all topics and matters relating to science, "Me thinks you protests too much".

These observations were observed up to page #26. Do you want part 2 exposing your behavior from the more current pages? Therefore, all of your self-serving obfuscated vilifications of me, are just complimentary.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, shunyadragon. You are talking about individual “atheists” or group of “atheists” who might or might not accept science.

The subject of opening post of the thread referred to atheism, and not individual nor a specific group of atheists. The problem of debating what individuals may believe cannot be a reasonable question.

But “atheism” itself says nothing about science, one way or the other; it neither agree or disagree with science.

True, and that is not the subject of the thread. Back to basic English the question is consistency with the 'belief.''

You are talking about people who called themselves “atheists”, and those atheists who accept science.

Sure, a majority of atheists around the world, accept science.

Again , , , I am, nor is subject of the thread is 'talking about individual nor groups of people who call themselves atheists.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is? I never knew this was even applicable or a question that made any sense. Well, it's a good thing we have you to say they aren't inconsistent!

It is not how I say.

 

[shunyadragon]

The topic "Science and Atheism inconsistent?", assumes a false premise or just begging the question. Especially, since there is no clearly defined exclusive/inclusive, inverse/converse connection between Atheism and Science.

True and that is not the subject of the thread.

However, it is based only on the tenets of science that justify any belief that nothing supernatural can, or does exist. We would have the same results if we asked, are "Checkers and science inconsistent?", or, are "Theism and science inconsistent?". Both questions are logically invalid without establishing a specific connection first(evidence). This is similar to asking the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?", without first demonstrating that the premise has been clearly established first. Now let's move on to see why the context of your discourse, is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Long tiresome essay length posts are difficult to deal with. Rambling off topic does not work. The subject of the thread is more simple. Is atheism as a belief system is consistent with science? Go back and review the definition of consistent.

 

[charlie sc]

It is not how I say.

Is it? I don't read links without any context. If you do that, especially in a discussion, the only person you're arguing against in the inanimate website So the only thing I have to go on is the one sentence.

How do you say it then?

 

[ecco]

Neither sides can test God, so all of it, is a matter of belief and non-belief - hence all of it, is a matter of opinions.

"Science" doesn't address the matter of god(s). However, we can and should, look at the existence of god(s) from a historical perspective and see what conclusions we can arrive at logically.

I think it's safe to say that no one today considers Atlas to be a god. The same can be said for hundreds of other gods that existed in the past.
I think it's safe to say that everyone believes all "gods" are not a real god, Except The One They Believe In.

It is apparent that everyone knows that all god, gods, God Except The One They Believe In, are nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings.

Gods were created, imagined, devised for the purpose of answering (then) unanswerable questions. They evolved into entities that could be used as mouthpieces to provide laws and ultimately punish the bad and reward the good.

One does not need a science degree to "prove" or "disprove" god, gods, God. One only needs to look at the history of god, gods, God and religions to see the facts. Facts that everyone agrees on with, perhaps, one ridiculous exception.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is it? I don't read links without any context. If you do that, especially in a discussion, the only person you're arguing against in the inanimate website So the only thing I have to go on is the one sentence.

How do you say it then?

The simplicity of one sentence beats the boring essay. Need no more.

 

[charlie sc]

The simplicity of one sentence beats the boring essay. Need no more.

No.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

True and that is not the subject of the thread.



Long tiresome essay length posts are difficult to deal with. Rambling off topic does not work. The subject of the thread is more simple. Is atheism as a belief system is consistent with science? Go back and review the definition of consistent.

The topic of this thread is, "Science and Atheism inconsistent?". For those with at least a High School level of literacy, this is an open-ended question asking if Atheism(not Atheists) is consistent or inconsistent with the tenets and methodology of science. In other words, is the atheistic position(that no god(s) exist) supported or unsupported by science? I explained that the question itself assumes that the facts in question to be true without evidence. This is a fallacy, which I clearly explained. Did you have a problem with my explanation? So, what is it that you are claiming is true? Is it the topic, or the fallacy? And, what exactly is not the subject of the thread? I suppose being vague and ambiguous are your tools of discourse. Never mind, just another question to avoid or BS your way through.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in theism. The only methodology is a presumption of Atheism, with the onus of proof on the theists. Scientific methodology is based on facts, evidence, and falsification. That is, science needs to be able to falsify something, to determine its level certainty. Since there is zero evidence supporting any God belief, science has no position in supporting Atheism or Theism. Atheism is simply the logical default position. Therefore, is Atheism consistent or inconsistent with science? The answer is irrelevant since science is neutral, has no position, and can't prove or falsify Atheism. Sorry that the length of my post effects your attention span. I will try to keep them brief. Fortunately, you are not the only one that reads them.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Because atheist want to use skepticism as an absolute, imagine if haters hated themselves. It's like skeptics don't wish to be.

 

[ecco]

Because atheist want to use skepticism as an absolute, imagine if haters hated themselves. It's like skeptics don't wish to be.

What?

 

[gnostic]

Atheism is the absence of a belief in theism. The only methodology is a presumption of Atheism, with the onus of proof on the theists. Scientific methodology is based on facts, evidence, and falsification. That is, science needs to be able to falsify something, to determine its level certainty. Since there is zero evidence supporting any God belief, science has no position in supporting Atheism or Theism. Atheism is simply the logical default position. Therefore, is Atheism consistent or inconsistent with science? The answer is irrelevant since science is neutral, has no position, and can't prove or falsify Atheism.

Exactly.

That’s what I was trying to convey to shunyadragon...but apparently unsuccessfully so.

Science has nothing to do with atheism...any more than it has to do with theism.

But more importantly atheism have nothing to do with science.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Exactly.

That’s what I was trying to convey to shunyadragon...but apparently unsuccessfully so.

Science has nothing to do with atheism...any more than it has to do with theism.

But more importantly atheism have nothing to do with science.

Not only will I be unsuccessful, but even God Himself would be unsuccessful. No rationale can compete with the theist's own, "belief deconfirmation paradigm", "choice-supportive bias", "cognitive dissonance", and the inordinate fear of their own mortality. This kind of subjective mindset does not allow for introspection and self-analysis.

 

[MonkeyFire]

What?

As if hate got hated on is when it is the hate. It's a oxymoron.

 

[ecco]

Because atheist want to use skepticism as an absolute, imagine if haters hated themselves. It's like skeptics don't wish to be.

As if hate got hated on is when it is the hate. It's a oxymoron.

Two incoherent comments.

 

[Neutral Name]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

He perfectly states my beliefs.