Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
_Morpheus did you hear? I worship dionysus now. Yea he doesn't make lightening and all that. But the booze benefits are fantastic!!!
I know the Cretin it used to be funny listening to him and trying to figure out what language he talked in. The WTBTS should hire someone like him as an expert witness at the Australian Royal Commission. Strictly politically speaking he was a smart man.
Sorry freemind i cant always keep up :P again we have proof for him. Good wine speaks his praise. Ive yet to find the deasert god saying a damn thing
Has the desert god provided wine?
Explain to me what is unscientific about not believing something because you have yet to see any evidence it exists?
Is lack of belief in the tooth fairy unscientific?
Is it unscientific to not believe in Unicorns?
Is it unscientific to say you do not believe in Buddha?Do you believe in Buddha? If not, is that unscientific?
If I ever saw scientific evidence of the existence of God, then I would believe she exists, until then I don't see thpoint.
If you can honestly answer these questions, then we can have a discussion.
This post is much like the profile pic. Sinking ship
First off, Atheism or Theism is a statement of what you believe or don't believe. An Atheist can be Gnostic or Agnostic, sure or not sure.
I think you are referring to the fact that the claim: "there is no God" is unscientific and I would agree with you. But most Atheist are not Gnostic, they are Agnostic. A belief can not be "wrong" in the same sense as a fact. If there are no aliens, the statement; "there are aliens" would be wrong, but; "I believe in aliens but I don't know if they exists" would not be wrong. Therefor any Agnostic position can not be "wrong" since it means you don't know, this is true for both Agnostic Theists, Desists, Atheists, and all other belief systems.
It is not unscientific because It does not deal with science.
"What science do you feel Supports the non existence of God" Predictably The Atheist has responded with "There is no Evidence or Proof of God & Science requires empirical Evidence."
That is just shifting around the burden of proof... There is no proof of Gods none existence, and how could there be? Because there is no: "Evidence or Proof of God with Science by empirical Evidence."
And shifting around the burden of proof is something Theists and Atheists love doing...
Usually the Atheist would say: "you claim there is a man in the sky, so you prove that it is true"
The funny thing is that if the Theist is Agnostic and the Atheist is Gnostic, the Atheist would have the burden of proof. And vice versa.
Since this is a fundamental flaw in your premise your understanding and reasoning is not correct. I don't blame you thou, most people lack a good understanding of what they are talking about when it comes to this area, read all the definitions to get a better understanding on Wikipedia.
Complicated quantum system = Like Unnatural objects All Natural objects must be formed and brought into existence by an Intelligent being
this is flawed because you've just made a giant leap here. It's a bold assertion.
As you highlighted, atheism is a question of belief and that's all.
agnosticism is a question of knowing. You're correct in that no atheist should boldly assert "I know there is no god," but few actually do that.
Agnostic atheists do not (and cannot) know for a certainty that there is no god, just as they can't say with certainty there's not a pink teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars.
Its a useless endeavor to prove a negative. However, the burden of proof lies on the individual(s) making the claim. If there is insufficient evidence for that claim, his audience should not believe it until such evidence is presented. And by evidence, it must be observable, testable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable. Science allows for those requirements; faith, religion & theology do not and never have.
your conclusion that "all natural objects must be formed and brought into existence by an intelligent being" is merely a bold assertion and does NOT stop there. WHICH "intelligent being?" Oh, gee, thanks for showing me this... I TOTALLY believe in Allah now. Or Vishnu. Or Xenu.
what--that's not the conclusion you've reached? Ok then, you have more burden of proof and you've not even gotten off the ground.
demonstrate the mechanism by which all natural objects "must be" formed by an "intelligent being." Develop a protocol by which this claim can be tested--a protocol that peers can review, repeat & critique. If they come to the same conclusion, bingo! You've just won the Nobel prize! But even THEN, you'd have gotten us no closer to virgin births, walking on water and rising from the tomb after 3 days of death.
Go back to the drawing board.
The Simple System = An Unnatural object has never been formed or brought into existence without the actions or force of an Intelligent Being.
How do you know this?
Complicated quantum system = Like Unnatural objects All Natural objects must be formed and brought into existence by an Intelligent being.
Except for God? You say all; "Unnatural objects and All Natural objects must be formed" but then you want to make a exception for God. If you believe in God, then you think that there are "things" that can exists without being created by a intelligent designer. Why should we make the exception for God, when it comes to this "rule" of yours?
Please define the "god" of which you write. Thank you.