Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol 449 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Saintbertholdt

  LAWHFol,
  When I have asked Atheist's, a question like "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."
  Your statement above is correct. In your post you also explain why this reasoning is supposedly incorrect. However by your own measure -

  One also cannot prove that Elves do not exist.
  One also cannot prove that Fairies do not exist.
  One also cannot prove that Lord Xenu does not exist.
  One also cannot prove that the universe is not the ejaculate of a Giant Space Penis.

  So based upon your reasoning science cannot make any statements about the above because it can't disprove these examples empirically.

  however

  Absence of evidence is good enough to discount ALL of the above for any practical and scientific purpose. For example: When botanists study pollination of plants, they do not seriously consider the possibility that fairy's do this job at night. They don't present this as a possible alternate theory in scientific papers. Why? It is inefficient because it clouds the real evidence (insects, wind etc) for pollination and does not contribute anything to an understanding of the subject. Now if solid scientific evidence were to emerge for fairies pollinating plants then it would be incorporated into human scientific knowledge and would alter humanities perspective accordingly....

  
  The simple facts are as follows:
  1. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.
  2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  Science is Atheistic, Aelveistic, Afairyistic, Axenuistic, Agiantspacepenistic. However it always remains open to the possibilities if serious scientific evidence were to emerge.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Science is Atheistic, Aelveistic, Afairyistic, Axenuistic, Agiantspacepenistic. However it always remains open to the possibilities if serious scientific evidence were to emerge.
  

  Atheism is in regard to belief, not fact nor science.

  When I have asked Atheist's, a question like "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."

  "There is no Evidence or Proof of God & Science requires empirical Evidence."

  This is not science nor proof that supports the non existence of God.

  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Atheism is in regard to belief, not fact nor science.

  Yes like the belief that fairies don't exist. One cannot disprove that fairies don't exist.

  So why aren't scientific papers written about fairies? (Except in relation to anthropology)

  The fact is that the faith and belief that fairies do not exist transfers into scientific thought and action.

  Lack of evidence automatically discards a hypothesis in science.

  In science there is ONE measure: Experiment!
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Lack of evidence automatically discards a hypothesis in science.

  No, a hypothesis is either proved or disproved, not rejected because there is no evidence. Usually there is something that indicates the idea could be true for the hypothesis to be formed thou.

  There is no proof of a Multiverse, and how could there be? If there are other universes outside of our own, how would we know about it? Still it is an idea entertained in science and in some of our models.

  As I said before; Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  There is no proof of a Multiverse, and how could there be? If there are other universes outside of our own, how would we know about it? Still it is a thought entertained in science and in some of our models.

  1. Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted.

  2. There are ALSO tens of mathematical models that suggest a unified theory. So there is mathematical evidence for these theories which merit investigation. HOWEVER the only way any mathematical model will be accepted will be through experiment and observation.

  3. There is no mathematical model as yet that suggests God. So why would it merit investigation?

  I re-iterate: Atheism is scientific.
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  By the way, according to this mantra - give me one practical example where this has worked.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted.

  You clearly don't understand what the word "proof" means or you mean something different than me. To me "proof" is evidence and that must be observable, testable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable.

  I don't know what models you have looked at and I would like you to give an example of such a model, one I heard about goes something along the lines of; A multiverse could be a explanation of the big bang, mathematical formulas show how such a model would work and how the universe could have been formed under such conditions.

  No evidence for a multiverse, no proof... But this is a hypothesis alongside many others.

  There are ALSO tens of mathematical models that suggest a unified theory. So there is a mathematical evidence for these theories which merit investigation.

  Study this a little and you will see that such "mathematical models" are by no means evidence. Or prove me wrong and link one that do.

  Lets say we lived a few thousand years ago and we thought that everything had a God. And I came up with the hypnosis that the God of rain was in love with the God of the rainbow. I did many observations to show that this could be the case. This would not be proof, it would just be a way to explain what I saw.

  It is the same way with these models, we come up with reasons for what we see, try to make sense of them with hypothesis, but the calculations that built the hypnosis is in no way evidence for that hypothesis...

  There is no mathematical model as yet that suggests God. So why would it merit investigation?

  I have no idea, you tell me.

  I re-iterate: Atheism is scientific.

  Atheism is in no way, shape or form science. Wikipedia it if you don't believe me... Neither is Theism, Deism or any other belief system.
  
• 

  C0ntr013r

  By the way, according to this mantra - give me one practical example where this has worked.

  It refers to you being guilty of a logical fallacy...

  The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam) is a logical fallacy, you can google that to. It is usually refuted by: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
• 

  C0ntr013r

  You know, if I understand you correctly, your position is that of a Gnostic Atheist, hence you actually have the burden of proof. So if you can, please prove the non existence of god.
• 

  snare&racket

  There is a misconception here, that you are an atheist or agnostic. You can be both.

  I'm agnostic about Bigfoot as we have yet to find credible evidence, I'm also a-bigfootist in beliefs ...,,as I don't think they exist.

  As with he issue of God, we are all willing to change our mind with evidence.

  I'm agnostic in stating as fact there is no God, but atheist in belief as there is currently no evidence.