Science and atheism inconsistent?

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Not missing your point. But the OP was about the interference on the scientific method of atheist 'beliefs'...

That seems strange.

Methodological naturalism is a 'useful' conceptual paradigm, and has worked just fine for many theistic scientists.
The gap between atheism and methodological naturalism is effectively none, in terms of cognitive dissonance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sadly.

Meh...we learnt that from theists....
If the OP is anything to go by, agnostics now appear to be demonstrating the same bad habits.

 

[Yerda]

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.

I see. I can understand the motivation for puncturing that kind of arrogance. I don't think the guy makes a very good case for the inconsistency, however.

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

What does "I am" mean here?

 

[blü 2]

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’.

But you know I'll say it's either real or imaginary and repeat my definitions, and you'll present your rebuttal and so on.

Perhaps the lesson is that when that's done we'll still get on amicably.

 

[PureX]

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.

You really don't get it. No one cares what evidence you think is "right". They care about what works for them in their experience of living. What works for them is their evidence.

 

[Altfish]

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

Not a clue, I didn't name it.

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?

As I have said before, we base it on a LACK of evidence, since atheism's claim is a negative

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.

It may be huge to you, it isn't to me.
What should I identify as? If I don't believe in gods.
It is only needed because religious people insist on labels.

 

[PureX]

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.

I am discussing atheism as a philosophical position. I am not discussing atheists except in the most generalized, idealized way. I am not here to argue with any self-proclaimed atheists about what they do or don't believe.

 

[Willamena]

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.

I have a shovel. I pray to my God that the shovel is in the garage. I go to the garage, and there it is. I have "evidence" of my shovel's existence.
I have shovel. I don't pray to God for it to be in the garage, because that's silly and I know I left it there before the snow fell. My shovel remains in the garage, and when I look in the garage the next week, there it is. I really did have evidence that it was there.

As for the atheist, though, my friend told me he had shovel, but I looked in his garage and I can't find I anywhere.

 

[Altfish]

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.

A name to call a group of people, a label - absolutely nothing to do with bias.
Bias, suggests an unfair favouritism for one side despite available evidence or lack of;

 

[PureX]

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.

"Make the most of" according to what criteria? Hedonism? Because isn't that about what's left to you when the mechanisms of physics are all that determines truth?

 

[PureX]

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

One needs to learn the difference between tomayto and tomahto. It's ALL interpretation my friend. And it's all subjective as we are the subjects doing the interpreting.

 

[Altfish]

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.

How do you know that "Nothing could never have existed"?

 

[PureX]

A name to call a group of people, a label - absolutely nothing to do with bias.
Bias, suggests an unfair favouritism for one side despite available evidence or lack of;

Atheism is a label for a philosophical position, not a group of people. It's the position that has no basis in evidence, effective value, or possibility, leaving only an empty bias (IMO). And you don't seem to be able to refute this.

 

[Yerda]

You really don't get it. No one cares what evidence you think is "right". They care about what works for them in their experience of living. What works for them is their evidence.

In my experience, most people genuinely care whether what they believe is true or not and if there are reliable means of discovering either way.

What works for you is fine by me, but it's more than a little unreasonable for you to be on here posting whatever you feel like saying while telling me, responding to your claims, that no-one cares what I think.

 

[Altfish]

Atheism is a label for a philosophical position, not a group of people. It's the position that has no basis in evidence, effective value, or possibility, leaving only an empty bias (IMO). And you don't seem to be able to refute this.

You keep making untrue assertions.

If you are happy with this statement, I'm happy to concede your dodgy reasoning
"Christianity is a label for a philosophical position, not a group of people. It's the position that has no basis in evidence, effective value, or possibility, leaving only an empty bias. "

 

[suncowiam]

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.

The same agnostic has to believe that purple people eaters exist in the universe because we can't categorically prove that they don't exist.

Then this logic extends to an infinite amount of objects and ideals because we can't observe through the entire universe and beyond.

If you asked me, the flaw is suggesting things could exist without being to prove its existence first.

I could suggest that an evil spirits exists in your basement waiting to cause harm to you and your family. And when harm does come, because statistically it will, I can simply suggest the evil spirit did it. You can't suggest I'm wrong. This can go on for an infinite amount of abstract concepts.

 

[Audie]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

Do you accept only the word of a scientist who
supports some position you have?

 

[Willamena]

This image may help:

It really, really doesn't.

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

Gnosticism is an ancient Greek religion. Gnosticism - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

You keep making untrue assertions.

If you are happy with this statement, I'm happy to concede your dodgy reasoning
"Christianity is a label for a philosophical position, not a group of people. It's the position that has no basis in evidence, effective value, or possibility, leaving only an empty bias. "

Ya think? Gets tiresome esp as received
WIisdom brought from on High.

 

[Audie]

In my experience, most people genuinely care whether what they believe is true or not and if there are reliable means of discovering either way.

What works for you is fine by me, but it's more than a little unreasonable for you to be on here posting whatever you feel like saying while telling me, responding to your claims, that no-one cares what I think.

There is also that your mind is closed to honest discussion.