Science and atheism inconsistent?

[bobhikes]

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

What unnecessary step? The fact that something always existed is unnecessary? Nothing could never have existed. As I said at minimum potential for something had to exist. Potential is a thing scientifically defined.

 

[Audie]

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.

Say this is terrif! I see the flood waters a-comin' but i can
choose a different conceptual paradigm and subjectively
exprrience a pleasant day shopping.

And BTW, your constant harping on atheists doing
"Scientism" is tiresome, insulting, empty headed
garbage.

 

[shunyadragon]

There most certainly is from an objective standpoint of human perception in relative reality.

From the 'human objective standpoint of human conception in relative reality' remains an anecdotal subjective slaim of the existence of God(s).

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.

It is obvious even to most atheists that there is no objective verifiable evidence either way. This is a non-issue.

 

[PureX]

If you replace God with Jim the Magic Fairy would the relief of a cold still be evidence for his existence and benevolence?

Why do you think this should matter? And why, especially, should it matter to the guy who's God relieved his cold?

 

[atanu]

Seems like a ridiculous and ignorant position.
1) majority of atheists are agnostic atheists
2) believers have actually managed to park beliefs at the door and do good science
3) methodological naturalism is such a small leap...even for a strong atheist...that it hardly seems a problem

You have not touched the main point. Let that be.

Can you kindly explain what you mean in the third point?

 

[PureX]

I'm an agnostic atheist ...

What you are (or don't believe) does not define atheism. This thread is about atheism. Atheism is a philosophical position that claims God/gods do not exist.

 

[atanu]

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.

That is not what I meant by ‘bookish’, however.

 

[Willamena]

What "holes"?

That "there is a god/isn't a god" is an issue of ontology. That "we know/don't know that there is or isn't a god" is an issue of epistemology. Where agnosticism (properly, in my view) falls as epistemology, it stands in contrast to those who say, "I don't believe in god."

 

[Yerda]

Why do you think this should matter? And why, especially, should it matter to the guy who's God relieved his cold?

Well, because if I can use it to claim evidence for Jim the Magic Fairy I can use it to claim evidence for anything. If it's evidence of anything at all then it's evidence of nothing.

It should matter to you what it means to say whether an outcome is evidence of a claim.

 

[PureX]

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

You're missing the point. There are billions of theists on this planet, and they remain theists because doing so is 'working for them' in some significant way. Theism is a conceptual paradigm, just like scientific materialism, is. And it's working for the people who embody it or they would seek and accept something that worked better. We humans are nothing if not selfish that way.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Atheism is not without reason, evidence, and purpose. Actally, nothing cognitive is without reason, evidence, and purpose.

 

[Willamena]

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

Sadly.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is obvious even to most atheists that there is no objective verifiable evidence either way. This is a non-issue.

It only becomes a non-issue if one can provide objective evidence of God. As stated, there is objective evidence of absence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You have not touched the main point. Let that be.

Can you kindly explain what you mean in the third point?

The main point?
The OP was a link to the article without any commentary or position...

Regardless of belief or non-belief in God, a position of methodological naturalism is most appropriate for scientific endeavours.
The article linked in the OP is suggesting that such a position is problematic for an atheist. That seems quite bizarre.

 

[PureX]

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.

Objectivity is a subjectively held opinion about reality. It's based on a scientific materialist philosophical paradigm. If you hold that paradigm, of course you believe the "evidence" that paradigm generates is the only 'true' evidence. But theism is a different philosophical paradigm, with a different criteria for 'true' evidence. And applying the criteria of one philosophical paradigm to another is illogical, biased, and mostly a waste of time. If you want to convert other people from one paradigm to another, you're going to have to stop trying to show them which is right/wrong (true/untrue) according to your "evidence" and instead show them which is more valuable to them in their experience of life. Because true/untrue are defined by the philosophical paradigm through which they are being identified and assessed.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If it were based on nothing but a pointless and useless bias, it would not be "philosophical."

 

[Subduction Zone]

That "there is a god/isn't a god" is an issue of ontology. That "we know/don't know that there is or isn't a god" is an issue of epistemology. Where agnosticism (properly, in my view) falls as epistemology, it stands in contrast to those who say, "I don't believe in god."

Not really. This image may help:

One can either be a theist or an atheist but the degree of belief, which is what gnosticism versus agnosticism is a smooth spectrum.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What you are (or don't believe) does not define atheism. This thread is about atheism. Atheism is a philosophical position that claims God/gods do not exist.

My goodness.
If you're determined to both pose the question and the answer, I can't help you.

You seem to be suggesting all atheists are strong atheists.
I've met a LOT of atheists in my life, between Australia, New Zealand and Scandanavia.
The overwhelming majority are agnostic atheists.

But you keep punching that strawman if you like.

 

[icehorse]

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.

One positive purpose of atheism is to make the most of the life we know we have, not bank on an afterlife for which we have no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

One needs to learn the difference between objective and subjective evidence. And objective and subjective interpretations of that evidence.