Is Atheism Unscientific?
- Thread starter th.w.heller
- Start date
- Status
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Oil, I have called you out for trolling already. You cannot possibly be allowed make a trash-talking statement like that in the middle of an otherwise serious discussion without supporting it. This is a place of science and you just posted an extraordinary assertion. According to the Rule of Laplace, you are hereby directed to immediately present the extraordinary evidence that supports that assertion. If you do not do so, you are proscribed from ever pursuing this line of reasoning again. This is the scientific method in action, something with which you may or may not be acquainted.
I let you get away with it the first time because it was a week day and I was busy. You won't be so lucky on the weekend. If you don't clean up your act, I WILL ban you for violating the rule against trolling.
I have supported it. Aristotle's First Cause and Prime Mover are based upon Aristotelian logic and causality. The rejection of the First Cause and Prime Mover are therefore illogical. I think it's funny (sad?) that you would threaten to ban somebody for thinking that. If my religious belief in atheism were threatened by the persuasive and scientific nature of Aristotle's argument and I had no logical or scientific rebuttle, I would threaten to ban me as well. It's clear to me that I'm being discriminated against due to the logical nature and scientific power of my arguments. If I was merely a "troll" as you claim, you would use logic and science to refute my arguments and you wouldn't need to threaten a ban.
When atheists say theism is illogical do you call them trolls and threaten to ban them? Do you invoke "The Rule of Laplace" to call atheists trolls or ban atheists when they say theism is illogical?
Last edited:
I don't know about you but I have never seen, heard, smelt, felt, or tasted god.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There are many things that can't be observed directly with our senses. In those cases it's acceptable to use other means, instruments being the obvious example. Another obvious example is the "observation" of things that happened in the past. If it was the recent past, we evaluate written (or now electronically recorded) accounts for honesty, objectivity, competence, etc. For the more distant past we have to settle for the evidence left by the event or condition. Then we have to look for consistency and other telltales.
Each of these takes us one remove further from the actual event or condition. Therefore theories based on other than first-hand observation can easily run into a problem with the "true beyond a reasonable doubt" bullet in the definition that elevates a hypothesis to the stature of a scientific theory.
As a perfect, topical example, this is the reason that evolution is a proper theory, whereas abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis. There are (literally) tons of evidence for evolution; finding it in DNA, which we've only known about for a very short time, is a strong corroboration. The hypothesis of abiogenesis is based almost entirely on reasoning, rather than evidence.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
All right, so you have followed the rules and provided reasoned support your assertion. Nonetheless I hope you can do better than Aristotle. The ancient Greeks were great mathematicians and logicians, but they were pretty weak on science.
True modern science and the scientific method were only developed in the aptly named "Age of Reason." Aristotle, reasonable as he was for his relatively benighted times, predated them by two millennia and therefore could not be expected to argue according to the more evolved rules we have today.
First Cause (a literal and more correct translation of Latin primum movum than the obvious but off-the-mark "prime mover") is, in a modern society in which atheism is respectable, circular reasoning and therefore fallacious reasoning. As I have pointed out in response to your posts a number of times, postulating the existence of a creator only makes the universe somewhat larger, and begs the original question with the addendum, "by the way, where did the creator come from?"
You have consistently failed to answer that question. Posting a statement multiple times without responding to questions about it is, indeed, trolling.
And that is the specific "illogical" part of your particular brand of theism that I am focused on. Argument from primum movum is itself fallacious reasoning.
As I have said before, it is perfectly okay to answer a question with, "I don't know." Scientists say it all the time. As Lt. Cmdr. Data of the Enterprise wisely once said, that statement is the basis of all science. And as my wife quipped, men invent religions so they never have to say it.
As the Moderator of the Linguistics subforum, it obviously falls to me to chastise people for improper use of words. You cannot call atheism “religious.” Every definition of “religion”--except as a metaphor, in which case its use is often insulting—includes belief in the supernatural and the ability of the supernatural to affect our world. The one thing all atheists have in common is the rejection of that belief.
Aristotle's arguments were persuasive for their day, and proper science had not yet been codified. Today his arguments on this subject are neither properly scientific nor especially persuasive.
Your logic is circular and your science is two thousand years out of date. You are not being discriminated against. You are being asked to follow the rules of a science website, which include respecting the scientific method at all times except in jest. However, I think you're trying so you don't qualify as a troller. (I hesitate to call people trolls because of the connotations of the word, although we always seem to have one or two among our members.
)
I have responded to your argument with logic. You have followed the rules and provided support for it, but your support is weak and you can’t expect to get any further with it.
I have not encountered that. When I do I’ll have to judge the entire argument. I characterize religion, rather than theism, as unscientific or antiscientific, rather than illogical. Because all religions reject the fundamental premise of science: the natural universe as a closed system. All arguments for the truth of religion, based only on the hearsay of past disciples of the religion and poorly documented accounts of supposedly supernatural phenomena, qualify as trolling when posted on a website with the word “Science” in its name.
The Rule of Laplace says that extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before we are required to treat them with respect. We are not required to treat them with disrespect, but we are permitted to. A forum dedicated to science is certainly one place where that disrespect is categorically authorized for unsupported assertions denying the validity of science.
Theism, the mere belief in the existence of a class of supernatural beings, is not necessarily illogical or unscientific. Presumably a person can believe in them without believing that they have the power to capriciously perturb the functioning of the natural universe. Things that are unobservable and do not leave traces of their activity lying around are obviously rather difficult to find. But so few people hypothesize gods of this type that it would be little more than a linguistic exercise to devise a terminology for their belief system, which is not religion.
There is no such thing as an atheist/agnostic. I'll try to find the numerous threads in which we proved this.
Furthermore, all religions, including atheism, wouldn't mind waking up one morning, and fining out that all the other religions were gone so that everyone could work towards solving the worlds problems for a change. The only difference is that atheists are self-righteous about it. There is no religion more self-righteous than atheism.
I haven't failed to answer it. Rather you have failed to read or comprehend it.
Link
The Supreme Court has ruled atheism is a religion, but more importantly it's self-evident to any philosopher that atheism is a religion.
If that's true, then why are you so threatened by them?
Truth never goes out of date.
Calling someone a troll is not a logical argument. It's an appeal to emotion and ad hominem fallacy.However, I think you're trying so you don't qualify as a troller. (I hesitate to call people trolls because of the connotations of the word, although we always seem to have one or two among our members.
Which is why he didn't call him a troll.
I logicly refuted Aristotle to him in another thread but he just won't see it.
I might see if that was before or after this.
I might see if that was before or after this.
Nope; however, we do know that all human claims of particular 'Gods' existing are false.
Lixluke,
"There is no such thing as an atheist/agnostic."
Yes there is, I am one.
"I'll try to find the numerous threads in which we proved this."
You won't. Atheist/agnostic is someone who does not believe in god but can not prove there is no god. I simply can not claim knowledge which is unknown and not proveable. And you believe in god why ? And you can prove god exists how ? Neither of us can prove god exists but only one of us believes it does.
"Furthermore, all religions, including atheism, wouldn't mind waking up one morning, and fining out that all the other religions were gone so that everyone could work towards solving the worlds problems for a change."
Actually most atheists and theists I know would would support that statement, and that is because most people I know of both persuasions are reasonable. I agree and really can't imagine anyone who would disagree. That would be a good day.
"The only difference is that atheists are self-righteous about it. There is no religion more self-righteous than atheism"
Yes those self-righteous atheists ! are you listening to yourself ?
Why specifically do you claim atheists and atheists alone are so self-righteous.
Please explain.
"There is no such thing as an atheist/agnostic."
Yes there is, I am one.
"I'll try to find the numerous threads in which we proved this."
You won't. Atheist/agnostic is someone who does not believe in god but can not prove there is no god. I simply can not claim knowledge which is unknown and not proveable. And you believe in god why ? And you can prove god exists how ? Neither of us can prove god exists but only one of us believes it does.
"Furthermore, all religions, including atheism, wouldn't mind waking up one morning, and fining out that all the other religions were gone so that everyone could work towards solving the worlds problems for a change."
Actually most atheists and theists I know would would support that statement, and that is because most people I know of both persuasions are reasonable. I agree and really can't imagine anyone who would disagree. That would be a good day.
"The only difference is that atheists are self-righteous about it. There is no religion more self-righteous than atheism"
Yes those self-righteous atheists ! are you listening to yourself ?
Why specifically do you claim atheists and atheists alone are so self-righteous.
Please explain.
No. How many times no? We've been over this hundreds of times, and non-atheists keep tying to tell atheists what they think. That is preposterous.
I'm talking about science. The OP is 'Is Atheism Unscientific', .. it doesn't ask about philosophy. Stick to the topic, please. If you can't make your point without referring to philosophy, you lose.
Oh, so do you think you are clever for knowing who he is?
You must think I am clever also in such case.
I take that as an emphatic no.Oh, so do you think you are clever for knowing who he is?
You must think I am clever also in such case.
Clearly comprehension is not your strong point. Which explains a lot.
th.w.heller
Registered Member
When I posed the original question for this thread my intention was not to create such a firestorm of ill will. phlogistician makes a good point. I posed the question strictly from the viewpoint of science and not philosophy. Is it really such a climb-down for either of the two extreme viewpoints on this issue to admit that scientifically speaking we are incapable of coming to a conclusion one way or the other?
*************
M*W: If there were no religions, atheism wouldn't exist. However, I am NOT saying that atheism is a religion but the lack thereof. There has to be something to believe, before it can be doubted.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Don't worry, that's what always happens. Can't we just agree to agree? Kidding. I would not say that it is impossible to come to a scientifically informed conclusion.
- Status