Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

Atheism is incompatible with science

3,143 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Khanivore
On 23/03/2019 at 4:27 PM, Horta said:

I doubt that science will ever do that. Also, science doesn't really "prove" anything. It always leaves the possibility that it's explanations could be wrong. I think your getting the wrong idea about science will.

Atheism doesn't claim gods don't exist. I'm an atheist and I don't claim that. I do claim that by any reasonable standard of knowledge, the god's as portrayed in the popular religious myths don't exist though. The claims haven't fared well scientifically. I consider that antitheism rather Thann atheism though.

What do you consider to be reasonable standard of knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
15 minutes ago, Podo said:

That man you just made is one of straw.

No I'll leave them to you. It was a simple question that you seem to be avoiding? The fact you think that is strawman shows your ineptitude. So you do you believe in a multiverse, M theory, String theory, dimensions, parallel universes, infinite number of universes? If you don't want to answer that then at least show me the strawman in there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
On 25/03/2019 at 4:48 AM, psyche101 said:

Look at how many physicists your dismissing to champion the opinion of one retired old man. 

Why? Because its what you want to hear. 

Its even funnier when you illustrate that you haven't any idea what the word irony means 

And it's not what you want to hear. Works both ways. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
On 25/03/2019 at 6:49 AM, psyche101 said:

But those particle accelerators gave us 'the god particle' which many said what you are now saying avout virtual particles. Virtual particles when observed will answer the riddle of existance completely. The theory is sound, and like the Higgs, there's no good reason to think we won't find it. 

God is superfluous. This work is being done to know how the universe cans to be. Sure its not specifically made to discount God, but that is a side effect of discovery. 

You have said many times that such advances in science won't solve the riddle of existence, yet they are on track to do just that. I'm not sure why you think it's impossible to find an answer, when we have found one, our pursuit is simply verification, as hard a task as that is, it doesn't seem impossible. 

How does the discovery of Higgs particle disprove God and help us with the riddle of existence which in itself has physical and metaphysical aspects? What you don't understand is that science has no say on God's existence and it never will, you are expecting a standard of knowledge only capable of dealing with the physical do give you answers on the metaphysical..... How do you conclude this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

There is no evidence for or against the existence of an objective god. However god exist within minds of believers as an idea. If you're search for objective proof of god, you have no faith. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
On 25/03/2019 at 7:27 AM, psyche101 said:

That's a skeptical position. For all the whining from the so called spiritual people about skeptics, they don't seem to get the same apllies to everything. Even the Sciences they fear and despise so much. 

Are you unaware of virtual particle theory? What Lawrence Krausses 'something from nothing' is entirely based upon? 

There's the dumbed down version from the people you despise, like Sean Carroll who bring these theories to the layman in paperbacks so we can grasp it. I got it Hab. Seriously, if I can get it anyone can. Some just fear it. I suspect you are simply unaware of these resources and have never approached them. They bring the very difficult within grasp. 

"Are you unaware of virtual particle theory? What Lawrence Krausses 'something from nothing' is entirely based upon?  

Hahaha. Something from nothing, which goes against, science, human experience, history, rationale, logic, maths, philosophy, unproven and entire human history and experience no one got something from nothing. Haha, clearly the nothing Krauss refers to is not nothing he is just playing word games. The vacuum in which quantum particles come in to existence and blink out of existence come from something which when you dig deep in to his theory is quite obvious, tit vacuum itself a fluctuating sea of energy from which the particles emerge and disappear, so it's not something from nothing. Lol. How ever of your adamant about this, please use the scientific method to demonstrate something from nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There is no evidence for or against the existence of an objective god. However god exist within minds of believers as an idea. If you're search for objective proof of god, you have no faith. 

I agree somewhat but I do believe there is a objective evidence but that is a different argument rooted in philosophy and ontological foundations for somethings, followed by a conceptual analysis which would lead to God. If not an objective answer then one can at least argue the case either way using many standards of knowledge rather than limiting one self to a standard which does not even deal with metaphysical seems a little naive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Khanivore said:

I agree somewhat but I do believe there is a objective evidence but that is a different argument rooted in philosophy and ontological foundations for somethings, followed by a conceptual analysis which would lead to God. If not an objective answer then one can at least argue the case either way using many standards of knowledge rather than limiting one self to a standard which does not even deal with metaphysical seems a little naive. 

The belief in god is an act of faith. Keep it simple and to the point. If someone seeks to validate their faith they never had it to begin with. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The belief in god is an act of faith. Keep it simple and to the point. If someone seeks to validate their faith they never had it to begin with. 

Only in Christianity and some other faiths where you require faith only. There are other religions which are more evidence based and demand that you scrutinize all of its claim, this is know as faith with certainty. Anyway that's a theological debate and has no here. I simply gave my opinion that evidence can objective and belief can be based on certainty and not faith alone, where as you only rely on pure faith without any certainty. Each to their own. It's not a matter of validation as you think, certainty, belief based on certainty not validation. 

Edited by Khanivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 hour ago, Khanivore said:

You said theism unproven, does that mean atheism is proven? 

I never said that atheism is proven. Atheism is the position that there is no reliable evidence for a god. So isn't the burden of proof on the people who makes the claim that god exists ?

If I claimed that invisible pink unicorns existed, don't you agree that it is up to me to support my claim ? Why is it different with theism ? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Khanivore said:

Only in Christianity and some other faiths where you require faith only. There are other religions which are more evidence based and demand that you scrutinize all of its claim, this is know as faith with certainty. Anyway that's a theological debate and has no here. I simply gave my opinion that evidence can objective and belief can be based on certainty and not faith alone, where as you only rely on pure faith without any certainty. Each to their own. 

The only objective evidence is the feel good chemical reactions in the brain due to confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
Just now, Khanivore said:

Only in Christianity and some other faiths where you require faith only. There are other religions which are more evidence based and demand that you scrutinize all of its claim, this is know as faith with certainty. Anyway that's a theological debate and has no here. I simply gave my opinion that evidence can objective and belief can be based on certainty and not faith alone, where as you only rely on pure faith without any certainty. Each to their own. 

 

Just now, XenoFish said:

The only objective evidence is the feel good chemical reactions in the brain due to confirmation bias.

Maybe for you. There is more to it than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 minute ago, Khanivore said:

I agree somewhat but I do believe there is a objective evidence but that is a different argument rooted in philosophy and ontological foundations for somethings, followed by a conceptual analysis which would lead to God. If not an objective answer then one can at least argue the case either way using many standards of knowledge rather than limiting one self to a standard which does not even deal with metaphysical seems a little naive. 

Seems like you should choose the applicable 'standard of knowledge' based on the claim. Right now science is the best, with no second place worth mentioning, 'standard of knowledge' for the existence of things in reality.

Science doesn't deal with the metaphysical because the metaphysical is part of a much larger category: things for which there is little to no evidence.  Provide some evidence to examine for the metaphysical and then we'll evaluate whether science is ill-equipped to deal with it.  Science, and most standards of knowledge, have trouble with things that don't actually exist, which to the non-naive may be the reason why it doesn't deal with the metaphysical.  Similarly it doesn't deal with magic either, but people don't usually attribute that to using the incorrect 'standard of knowledge'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Khanivore said:

 

Maybe for you. There is more to it than that. 

No not really. Any act of faith is just a means of reinforcing a beliefs. It builds an addiction. Which is why those of faith become defensive when challenged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

This is just another psychology vs. science debate. Quite boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
2 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I never said that atheism is proven. Atheism is the position that there is no reliable evidence for a god. So isn't the burden of proof on the people who makes the claim that god exists ?

If I claimed that invisible pink unicorns existed, don't you agree that it is up to me to support my claim ? Why is it different with theism ? 

No is the burden of proof not on you as the global minority who does believe in a God, most of humanity does in some form. So the burden of proof is on you. 

I bet you believe in concepts that have no proof but you'll accept them purely on testimony not science or observations. 

If you believe in infinite universes, that means there are infinite possibilities, so there is a possibility that unicorns and leprechauns exist some where. So do you adhere to these modern unsubstantiated theories? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

The belief perseverance is strong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Seems like you should choose the applicable 'standard of knowledge' based on the claim. Right now science is the best, with no second place worth mentioning, 'standard of knowledge' for the existence of things in reality.

Science doesn't deal with the metaphysical because the metaphysical is part of a much larger category: things for which there is little to no evidence.  Provide some evidence to examine for the metaphysical and then we'll evaluate whether science is ill-equipped to deal with it.  Science, and most standards of knowledge, have trouble with things that don't actually exist, which to the non-naive may be the reason why it doesn't deal with the metaphysical.  Similarly it doesn't deal with magic either, but people don't usually attribute that to using the incorrect 'standard of knowledge'.

How is science as and inductive method the best method, I recall someone saying it's all about imposing probability, well that's what science is, as inductive method it's only capable of giving the best possibility not 100% truth. Personally I am not dependant on only one standard of knowledge, ie, science, I use it combination with others which is how it is supposed to be used. 

The metaphysical deals with any claim of any type of reality or existence beyond the universe, that applies to scientific theories which deal with concepts beyond our physical reality, but science cannot substantiate them via its method which is restricted to the physical reality we exist in, that's why it cannot substantiate existence of God either way, it's beyond its scope, it can postulate etc using axioms and conventions which in themselves are beyond the scientific method, so it's reliance on one assumption after another. 

Edited by Khanivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
10 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

No not really. Any act of faith is just a means of reinforcing a beliefs. It builds an addiction. Which is why those of faith become defensive when challenged. 

That's just an opinion with no substantiation purely based on your subjective experience, now your superimpose it on all religions and faiths. Naive 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
24 minutes ago, Khanivore said:

That's just an opinion with no substantiation purely based on your subjective experience, now your superimpose it on all religions and faiths. Naive 

Okay. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, Khanivore said:

How is science as and inductive method the best method, I recall someone saying it's all about imposing probability, well that's what science is, as inductive method it's only capable of giving the best possibility not 100% truth.

Of course it's the best method, what's the alternative that has proven itself?  The way we are communicating right now is the result of science, correct?  If so, and you aren't 'naive' about the number of scientific discoveries that enable us to communicate this way, what's the greatest truth that the alternatives have discovered and established?

1 hour ago, Khanivore said:

Personally I am not dependant on only one standard of knowledge, ie, science, I use it combination with others which is how it is supposed to be used. 

If you are trying to determine if something exists, what other standard of knowledge are you using outside of science?

1 hour ago, Khanivore said:

The metaphysical deals with any claim of any type of reality or existence beyond the universe,

Okay, I'm glad you included the word 'claim' there.  Since the metaphysical is currently a claim then we don't actually know if the reason science can't study it is your theory that 'science is restricted to physical reality' or instead because the metaphysical doesn't exist.  If metaphysics is a claim then so are your notions about its actual attributes and the way it works.  Which would make your statements about its incompatibility with science also 'assumptions' and an 'opinion with no substantiation'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If you are trying to determine if something exists, what other standard of knowledge are you using outside of science?

Belief. Plain and simple. Belief trumps facts. Because they appeal to emotions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
6 hours ago, Khanivore said:

LOL. I bet there are things you believe in with out any observational evidence and you will have accepted purely on the basis of a reliable witness report.

Well, if you mean that I don't have an elctropn microscope and thus trust others who do...  Then yes, that's true.  Do you have difficutles verifying secondhand information?  If so, you're in for a hard ride thru life.

6 hours ago, Khanivore said:

You will have not observed most of the things you accept, what you accept are reliable testaments, that's all.

I think your defintiion of 'reliable' may not be the same as mine.  I check stuff, you accept anything you see on Da Interwebz.

6 hours ago, Khanivore said:

So get off your high horse. 

But I own this high horse..

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 hours ago, Khanivore said:

That's just an opinion with no substantiation purely based on your subjective experience, now your superimpose it on all religions and faiths. Naive 

That's what you're doing with superstition considering it knowledge rather than a philosophical guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

If I claimed that invisible pink unicorns existed, don't you agree that it is up to me to support my claim ? Why is it different with theism ? 

Ha! How can a invisible creature be pink? :lol:

11 hours ago, XenoFish said:

No not really. Any act of faith is just a means of reinforcing a beliefs. It builds an addiction. Which is why those of faith become defensive when challenged. 

I'd disagree. But only in that it isn't a addiction, but it is their hope. Broken faith means broken hope, which, arguably is worse a fate then having an addiction. :tu: it's no wonder people are defensive. Their hope for immortal life is being challenged.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.