why atheism, creationism, and ID are all un-scientific

[jasonwill2]

Some materialistic strong atheists say "there is no god" like it's a scientific stance. You can't prove a universal negative.

Intelligent design isn't scientific because it is just a hunch and has no actual evidence to support it, but rather some casual causation.

Creationists stick to their disproven "facts".

If any stance is properly Scientific, it is a certain flavor of agnosticism that says "we can not yet know if there is or isn't a god, but we may one day".

the scientific stance on the existence of gods should be as such: "Given our current understanding, there is not sufficient evidence for gods or universal designers"

It would seem to me, that both atheistic evolutionists and theistic creationists are going about it the wrong way. Strong Atheism, like theism, are both just personal views. You can't prove theism with our current understanding, and you can't prove atheism at all because it's impossible to prove a universal negative.

It would seem to me that the truly objective scientist would be agnostic.

I've seen all sides sides go to either the extreme of a raging atheist denouncing religion or the bible pounding creationists. It seems no one can reconcile that science does NOT indicate a designer anymore than it indicates NO designer.

In all of it, I am amazed at how polarized people are on this whole thing. Why must there be two flocks of sheep tearing at each other? Can't anyone for once just admit that their ID/Atheism/Theism/creationism is just a personal view, and keep it out of the science lab? Can't we just study science and see where the facts lead us?

If one day down the road we run into a designer that we can communicate with in a verifiable way, then great. If it turns out that we unlocked the mysteries of the Universe and there is no sign of a god, then great. But can we stop pretending that we are at a point in our understanding of reality to try and propose our personal views as science? Strong Atheism, creationism/theism, and ID can't be science, because of the various reasons I listed. They are all personal views. None of the three views I listed in the title can be called objective.

Discuss.

 

[rusra02]

What sort of proof would satisfy an honest person? Everywhere, in creatures so tiny we cannot see them unaided to giant creatures we can see evidence for design, genius in form, structure, and function. Further, the God of the Bible has acted throughout man's history. In fact, God has changed the course of history, and accurately predicted the rise and fall of world powers. God spoke to the Israelites, accompanied them in their journey through the wilderness, fed them every day miraculously, and did much more and still the Israelites did not display faith in God.
Despite all that God has done, men choose to ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist. The failure to exercise faith is a moral failure on man's part, not lack of evidence on God's part.

 

[jasonwill2]

What sort of proof would satisfy an honest person? Everywhere, in creatures so tiny we cannot see them unaided to giant creatures we can see evidence for design, genius in form, structure, and function. Further, the God of the Bible has acted throughout man's history. In fact, God has changed the course of history, and accurately predicted the rise and fall of world powers. God spoke to the Israelites, accompanied them in their journey through the wilderness, fed them every day miraculously, and did much more and still the Israelites did not display faith in God.
Despite all that God has done, men choose to ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist. The failure to exercise faith is a moral failure on man's part, not lack of evidence on God's part.

Rusa, that's great and all, just don't pretend it's science please.

 

[9Westy9]

atheism isn't non-scientific as it says nothing on whether we do/ can know anything about God only that the atheist doesn't believe in God(s).

 

[jasonwill2]

atheism isn't non-scientific as it says nothing on whether we do/ can know anything about God only that the atheist doesn't believe in God(s).

True.

edit: sorry I was distracted when reading this. I take back what I just said said.

What I meant by "un-scientific" is "non-scientific" as in "it isn't a scientific stance".

 

[Revoltingest]

Weak athiesm is slightly scientific because it employs Occam's Razor.

 

[jasonwill2]

Weak athiesm is slightly scientific because it employs Occam's Razor.

Not sure what that is off hand, but I've heard that term before (I'll look it up). Also I forgot about weak atheism. I was referring to hard atheism in my original post.

Edit:

After reading up on Occam's Razor, I can say that I can definitely see what you mean. All-though the simplest explanation isn't always right, it just is most of the time.

 

[9Westy9]

True.

edit: sorry I was distracted when reading this. I take back what I just said said.

What I meant by "un-scientific" is "non-scientific" as in "it isn't a scientific stance".

what would a 'scientific stance' be? and why isn't theism also included with atheism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure what that is off hand, but I've heard that term before (I'll look it up). Also I forgot about weak atheism. I was referring to hard atheism in my original post.

Edit:

After reading up on Occam's Razor, I can say that I can definitely see what you mean. All-though the simplest explanation isn't always right, it just is most of the time.

That's the beauty of Occam's Razor....it isn't supposed to be "right".
It's simply part of the scientific method....which is also lacking in rightitude.
But I agree that strong atheism isn't scientific.

 

[jasonwill2]

what would a 'scientific stance' be? and why isn't theism also included with atheism?

I did...

...Atheism, like theism, are both just personal views. You can't prove theism with our current understanding, and you can't prove atheism at all because it's impossible to prove a universal negative.

It would seem to me that the truly objective scientist would be agnostic.

Didn't you read what my original post said?

 

[9Westy9]

I did...



Didn't you read what my original post said?

Apologies I just looked at the title 'why atheism, creationism, and ID are all un-scientific'

 

[jasonwill2]

Apologies I just looked at the title 'why atheism, creationism, and ID are all un-scientific'

Happens to the best of us.

 

[Trimijopulos]

I was referring to hard atheism in my original post.

Some materialistic atheists say "there is no god" like it's a scientific stance. You can't prove a universal negative.

I would say that you never happened to listen to or to read writings by some hard atheist.

According to hard atheism the idea of God is an immemorial joke.
Some guy said once a joke about some people climbing a ladder to the heavens (Egyptian funerary texts) and we now search for a universe-creating God. Is it a tremendous joke or isn’t it?

Hard core atheists consider it an insult even to reflect on the existence or non-existence of a God.
The God is just the subject of a joke!

 

[jasonwill2]

I would say that you never happened to listen to or to read writings by some hard atheist.

According to hard atheism the idea of God is an immemorial joke.
Some guy said once a joke about some people climbing a ladder to the heavens (Egyptian funerary texts) and we now search for a universe-creating God. Is it a tremendous joke or isn’t it?

Hard core atheists consider it an insult even to reflect on the existence or non-existence of a God.
The God is just the subject of a joke!

Right... well that's all fine and dandy, but I'm pretty sure that the ancient people believed in the supernatural. Also I'm pretty sure "hard" atheism doesn't mean hardcore atheism, but rather "positive" atheism, where as soft atheism is "negative".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can't prove a universal negative.

Yes you can. For instance, there are no married bachelors.

 

[jasonwill2]

Yes you can. For instance, there are no married bachelors.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is that not a proven universal negative?

 

[jasonwill2]

Is that not a proven universal negative?

That's like saying all squares are not circles. Your argument has no validity because you are using inherently contradictory conditions for the same item (bachelor and married).

 

[Photonic]

Some materialistic atheists say "there is no god" like it's a scientific stance. You can't prove a universal negative.

Intelligent design isn't scientific because it is just a hunch and has no actual evidence to support it, but rather some casual causation.

Creationists stick to their disproven "facts".

If any stance is properly Scientific, it is a certain flavor of agnosticism that says "we can not yet know if there is or isn't a god, but we may one day".

the scientific stance on the existence of gods should be as such: "Given our current understanding, there is not sufficient evidence for gods or universal designers"

It would seem to me, that both atheistic evolutionists and theistic creationists are going about it the wrong way. Atheism, like theism, are both just personal views. You can't prove theism with our current understanding, and you can't prove atheism at all because it's impossible to prove a universal negative.

It would seem to me that the truly objective scientist would be agnostic.

I've seen all sides sides go to either the extreme of a raging atheist denouncing religion or the bible pounding creationists. It seems no one can reconcile that science does NOT indicate a designer anymore than it indicates NO designer.

In all of it, I am amazed at how polarized people are on this whole thing. Why must there be two flocks of sheep tearing at each other? Can't anyone for once just admit that their ID/Atheism/Theism/creationism is just a personal view, and keep it out of the science lab? Can't we just study science and see where the facts lead us?

If one day down the road we run into a designer that we can communicate with in a verifiable way, then great. If it turns out that we unlocked the mysteries of the Universe and there is no sign of a god, then great. But can we stop pretending that we are at a point in our understanding of reality to try and propose our personal views as science? Atheism, creationism/theism, and ID can't be science, because of the various reasons I listed. They are all personal views. None of the three views I listed in the title can be called objective.

Discuss.

You can't say atheism is unscientific. It is simply a state of lacking a belief, I think you have some serious misconceptions in your linear view of the scale of belief.

It goes a bit like this.

You may, if you wish, consider my position as a strong atheist (almost certainly no God) to be unscientific. However I believe the basic state should be one of not accepting a claim until evidence can prove otherwise, setting me at the default state of highest disbelief. I may have a different definition for my strong atheism though. I am also a scientific pantheist as well.

 

[Trimijopulos]

.. but I'm pretty sure that the ancient people believed in the supernatural.

Even so, believing in the supernatural does not mean that they regarded the gods as supernatural. They believed that the gods were making sex to women and produced half-gods.
Why not say that Jesus came down to earth from the skies which, according to modern way of thinking, would have been the normal thing to say, but made a story of the half god half man Jesus been born by a woman into a cave? Because it was the story that the people at that time would have believed. Gods were not coming down from the skies. They were born into caves.

Some gods! Hm?