• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

ynot

Philosopher
ynot
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
9,280
Location
Present
Theists often defend their god beliefs by attacking science with silly comments like - “Science doesn’t know everything, Science isn’t always right, Science can’t explain love”, etc. My response is usually - “So what? I’m an atheist mainly because theism has failed to convince me any god exists. Take away science and I would still be an atheist. Don’t blame science for the failure of theism”.

As I’ve never had a god belief (or any paranormal belief) I’m wondering if others are atheists predominately because of the success of science or the failure of theism.
 
You can't have one without the other. Or put another way, theism fails if you think critically, and, if you think critically, theism fails.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You can't have one without the other. Or put another way, theism fails if you think critically, and, if you think critically, theism fails.
Click to expand...
Rejecting the claims of theism requires such a low level of critical thinking I don't think I would call it "science". I rejected theism at a very young age.
 
I was never a real believer, merely a shrugging "I guess God's out there somewhere" kid until high school. Then I took a course in classical mythology where I learned that the cool stories I'd read (and movies seen) about ancient gods and heroes were actually religion -- those cultures worshipped those gods exactly the way modern people worship their gods. Ergo, modern religion was mythology.

That was my first step toward atheism. Science had nothing at all to do with it.
 
Of course theism and science are not incompatible. Heck, most of history’s greatest scientists had strong faith.

As such it seems pretty clear that atheism is the fail one.
 
I can remember at a primary school assembly when we were all supposed to be praying to God, thinking to myself "its just pretend". Maybe it was after I changed my mind about Santa. Not sure. But that was the end of any vague religiosity for me. God was filed with fairies, ghosts and dragons. I think this pre-dated my fascination with how cool science was at explaining the world. There was never a conflict between the two for me. One was awesome and the other was just make-believe.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Neither. Or both. I've always been convinced by evidence, and never by fairy tales.

Dave
Click to expand...
fishbob said:
Neither.
Read the bible when I was a kid. What a pant-load to take seriously.
Click to expand...
The fairy tales of the Bible are one version of theism attempting to get you both to become theists. Given that attempt has failed in both your cases I would say that is a failure of theism.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Of course theism and science are not incompatible. Heck, most of history’s greatest scientists had strong faith.
Click to expand...
Science is a method. Scientists aren’t science. Some scientists aren’t very good at applying the scientific method to all things (especially their non-scientific religious beliefs).

That theism and some (religious) scientists aren't incompatible doesn't mean theism and science are compatible.

The Big Dog said:
As such it seems pretty clear that atheism is the fail one.
Click to expand...
I guess when you don’t have anything intelligent to say “silly” is the best you can offer.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Science is a method. Scientists aren’t science. Some scientists aren’t very good at applying the scientific method to all things (especially their non-scientific religious beliefs).

I guess when you don’t have anything intelligent to say “silly” is the best you can offer.
Click to expand...

Well you set up a false dichotomy where one of the options was patently silly, and the other was a loaded pejorative, so it ain’t as if this thread could possibly get more silly from there, am I right?
 
Perhaps equal portions of both. By about age 40, theism had as much credibility to me as (e.g.) Heaven's Gate cult.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well you set up a false dichotomy where one of the options was patently silly,
Click to expand...
Which one?
The Big Dog said:
and the other was a loaded pejorative,
Click to expand...
Which one?
The Big Dog said:
so it ain’t as if this thread could possibly get more silly from there, am I right?
Click to expand...
I don't think you're right, but I'm sure there are others that might think you are. Further discussion with intelligent contributions might help us all to get at the truth.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Which one?

Which one?

I don't think you're right, but I'm sure there are others that might think you are. Further discussion with intelligent contributions might help us all to get at the truth.
Click to expand...

Definition of pejorative. : a word or phrase that has negative connotations (see connotation 1) or that is intended to disparage or belittle
 
LSSBB said:
I think the very fact that the scientists were able to function as scientists while holding religious beliefs is the very proof they are compatible. Did they fail at science while holding those beliefs?
Click to expand...
They failed at science in not correctly applying the scientific method to their beliefs. In other words they separated their beliefs from science. That hardly makes their beliefs and science compatible.
 
ynot said:
They failed at science in not correctly applying the scientific method to their beliefs. In other words they separated their beliefs from science. That hardly makes their beliefs and science compatible.
Click to expand...

well there are lots and lots of "beliefs" that are not subject to the scientific method, of course.

Heck, you mention one of them in your OP!
 
The Big Dog said:
Definition of pejorative. : a word or phrase that has negative connotations (see connotation 1) or that is intended to disparage or belittle
Click to expand...
I ask two questions and get the meaning of a word that I knew anyway!???

A blatant example of a subterfuge of obfuscation.

Theism has obviously failed to convince those that have rejected theism. Nothing pejorative about that (merely a fact).

Science has obviously succeeded in convincing those that have accepted science. Nothing pejorative about that (merely a fact).

Can’t spot any false dichotomy either. As I said . . .
ynot said:
I guess when you don’t have anything intelligent to say “silly” is the best you can offer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
As I’ve never had a god belief (or any paranormal belief) I’m wondering if others are atheists predominately because of the success of science or the failure of theism.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
The Big Dog said:
Of course theism and science are not incompatible. Heck, most of history’s greatest scientists had strong faith.

As such it seems pretty clear that atheism is the fail one.
Click to expand...

What a load of bs.

More than 90 percent of members of the academy of sciences identify as atheists. Science itself when applied to the question of, is there a God, comes up with the same answer as it does to, are fairies real? It is the application of the scientific method to the claim that there is a God which makes it necessary to tenuously reject the question.

And just because Newton or Galileo were Christians doesn't mean they used science to make that determination.

I'm an atheist for one reason and one reason only. That is there isn't a shred of credible evidence that I have ever seen to prove there is one.
 
"Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death"

" US scientists, however, are substantially less likely to hold belief in the supernatural (Larson and Witham 1997; Leuba 1916). Interestingly, this difference is far more evident among distinguished scientists: Larson and Witham (1998) found that 92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power."

https://evolution-outreach.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33
 
ynot said:
I ask two questions and get the meaning of a word that I knew anyway!???

A blatant example of a subterfuge of obfuscation.

Theism has obviously failed to convince those that have rejected theism. Nothing pejorative about that (merely a fact).

Science has obviously succeeded in convincing those that have accepted science. Nothing pejorative about that (merely a fact).

Can’t spot any false dichotomy either. As I said . . .
Click to expand...

That is odd, you typed “fail” in the headline, but your post omits mention of it. Talk about subterfuge of obfuscation.

We have also already established that religious faith is not incompatible with science, and it is absolutely not one or the other.
 
The Big Dog said:
well there are lots and lots of "beliefs" that are not subject to the scientific method, of course.

Heck, you mention one of them in your OP!
Click to expand...
I’m sure “Is your atheism” doesn’t apply to you so your only purpose is obviously to troll-heckle. Not going to waste my time responding further to you in this thread.
 
To some extent my Atheism was the result of a "Theistic" success. I could no longer contain the Divine in an exclusive, personal, anthropomorphic, supreme being. Though I have an apprehension of Transcendence, I no longer attach it to some kind of super being or super consciousness. I'm an Atheist who opens up to the Sacredness in all encounters. Religious Gods are at best golden calves.
 
ynot said:
I’m sure “Is your atheism” doesn’t apply to you so your only purpose is obviously to troll-heckle. Not going to waste my time responding further to you in this thread.
Click to expand...

I read you "loud" and "clear." :wink

Anyone interested in applying principles of critical thinking to the OP, I will be here and love to hear your thoughts.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm an atheist for one reason and one reason only. That is there isn't a shred of credible evidence that I have ever seen to prove there is one.
Click to expand...
And the incredible magic and miracles tales and rewards theism presents as evidence has failed to convince you otherwise. Theism has failed.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Of course theism and science are not incompatible. Heck, most of history’s greatest scientists had strong faith.

As such it seems pretty clear that atheism is the fail one.
Click to expand...


Of course "history's greatest scientists" sure. Some of those guys had to profess belief or nasty things were done to them by the church. Todays scientists not so and a couple of posts before this have made this point quite lucidly.

Theism fails primarily because of its silliness and scientists are not high on the scale of being silly. Ame Perdue I think said it best in the following:

But still I hear the Wrangling Sects proclaim
Their Paradises and their Seas of Flame,
Their Holy Ghosts and mystic Trinities,
With no degree of Intellectual Shame.
 
ynot said:
And the incredible magic and miracles tales and rewards theism presents as evidence has failed to convince you otherwise. Theism has failed.
Click to expand...

There are supernatural phenomenons attributed to virtually every God ever invented. Whether it be Vishnu, Wotan Zeuss, Allah or Yahweh. I view it this way. If God wanted me to believe in him/her, it would know exactly what it would take to get me to believe. Why does Jesus appear to Paul and no one today?

Why do the miracles stop 2,000 years ago?

Why is it that preachers who lay on hands never regrow an amputee's limbs? Revelation is not evidence. All, I've ever heard are ancient unbelievable stories.

You know, I tried to stay a Christian despite my disbelief. I thought, at least the bible teaches good morals. But it doesn't even do that. The Abrahamic God is a monster and a moron from Genesis right through Revelations. Sure, Jesus and the gospels are uplifting. Jesus teaches us about humanity. Thats all great, but the story of salvation and the threat of hell is as horrible as anything in the Old Testament.

And when I say the Abrahamic God is a moron, I mean exactly that. God is downright stupid. He fails throughout the book. God creates Paradise and then puts the serpent and the tree in it? He wants all mankind to believe in him but provides only unbelievable evidence? God makes all the rules and the only way that he could forgive humanity was to come to earth in human form as his son and be tortured and killed? Get serious.
 
Last edited:
Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

I've never been religious, primarily due to lack of evidence.

Logic also plays a role. If God exists then why are there so many different religions? By my thinking if God were to exist then there would be only one religion. Instead there are many which vary by culture.
 
The Big Dog said:
well there are lots and lots of "beliefs" that are not subject to the scientific method, of course.

Heck, you mention one of them in your OP!
Click to expand...
What beliefs, and why are these particular beliefs exempt from the usual requirement for evidence or verification?
 
Craig B said:
What beliefs, and why are these particular beliefs exempt from the usual requirement for evidence or verification?
Click to expand...

There is no requirement that love, hope, beauty, empathy, good taste, hell political beliefs have evidence or verification.

Say, I love my kids.... so let’s get out the test tubes and run that through the old verification process.

How ridiculous.
 
Iamafalser said:
I've never been religious, primarily due to lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
The fantasy claims of magic and miracles, and promises of great rewards or severe punishments offered by theism have failed to impress you then huh? Once again a theism fail. Obviously lack of evidence isn't a science success.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
There is no requirement that love, hope, beauty, empathy, good taste, hell political beliefs have evidence or verification.

Say, I love my kids.... so let’s get out the test tubes and run that through the old verification process.

How ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, your post is ridiculous. Love, hope, beauty, empathy, good taste etc are descriptive words for feelings or ideas. They aren't really an existential claim. Comparing that to a God claim is comparing apples to oranges.

In contrast, you claim that the Bible is the word of God and that we should follow it. For me, the mere assertion that there is a God and the bible is God's word is not enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and yet none has ever been provided.

The bible tells us that it is ok to own and beat slaves. That it is ok to sell our daughters into slavery and that if our daughter is raped that the rapist has to marry her. That if our bride is not a virgin on the wedding night that it is ok to kill her.

This is your book big dog.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
They failed at science in not correctly applying the scientific method to their beliefs. In other words they separated their beliefs from science. That hardly makes their beliefs and science compatible.
Click to expand...

Presupposes that they did not apply the scientific method to their beliefs, or that it was even a necessary step for them to lead a functional and fruitful life - or are you saying compatability has some other meaning?
 
The Big Dog said:
There is no requirement that love, hope, beauty, empathy, good taste, hell political beliefs have evidence or verification.

Say, I love my kids.... so let’s get out the test tubes and run that through the old verification process.

How ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I have evidence that all of those emotions and opinions exist. How? Because I feel them myself.

Conversely, I have never seen water turned into wine nor a human being parting a sea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom