Atheistic Scientists Pushing Their Religion

[Kylie]

Most people who call themselves atheist, are agnostic atheists who do not claim to actively know that god does not exist, but simply do not believe in things for which they have no evidence. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in fairies? If not, what evidence do you have that fairies cannot exist? Or do you simply feel that not believing in fairies is the reasonable default position until someone gives you positive evidence for them?

Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world's most famous atheist, proposed a 7-point scale:

1) Absolute, 100% certainty that there is a god.
2) Strong confidence that there is a god.
3) Slightly lean toward belief in god.
4) Exact 50/50.
5) Slightly lean against belief in god.
6) Strong confidence that there is no god.
7) Absolute, 100% certainty that there is no god.

Dawkins called himself a "6" on this scale. I don't know any atheist who is a "7". The closest thing to a "7" that I have seen is one atheist who argues that the concept of god is incoherent.

On that scale, I'd be about a 6.9. I don'ty believe in God, and I've never encountered a concept of god that could exist in reality (due to contradictions, etc). However, if there is a god that exists in reality, I'll be happy to believe, provided I have evidence for it that can withstand testing.

And no, I do not believe in fairies, because there is no evidence for them. Again, show me evidence for fairies, and I will believe.

 

[Kylie]

Now KTS, you know like I know you nor science nor Naturalists can prove there is no God.

The title of the OP is correct, Atheistic Scientists. It is their faith, not proof that is foundational.

.

That is true.

But then again, I bet you can't prove there is an invisible, weightless, intangible dragon sitting on your shoulder right now either. Do you think that there is a possibility, however small, that the dragon is there? I bet you don't.

 

[dcarrera]

On that scale, I'd be about a 6.9. I don'ty believe in God, and I've never encountered a concept of god that could exist in reality (due to contradictions, etc). However, if there is a god that exists in reality, I'll be happy to believe, provided I have evidence for it that can withstand testing.

And no, I do not believe in fairies, because there is no evidence for them. Again, show me evidence for fairies, and I will believe.

That is basically how I feel. I think most famous atheists would have a similar position.

 

[Michael]

Most people who call themselves atheist, are agnostic atheists who do not claim to actively know that god does not exist, but simply do not believe in things for which they have no evidence. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in fairies? If not, what evidence do you have that fairies cannot exist? Or do you simply feel that not believing in fairies is the reasonable default position until someone gives you positive evidence for them?

Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world's most famous atheist, proposed a 7-point scale:

1) Absolute, 100% certainty that there is a god.
2) Strong confidence that there is a god.
3) Slightly lean toward belief in god.
4) Exact 50/50.
5) Slightly lean against belief in god.
6) Strong confidence that there is no god.
7) Absolute, 100% certainty that there is no god.

Dawkins called himself a "6" on this scale. I don't know any atheist who is a "7". The closest thing to a "7" that I have seen is one atheist who argues that the concept of god is incoherent.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

There's something quite amusing about you comparing even *entirely empirical* theories of God to fairies, while you sit there and peddle a pantheon of invisible sky deities, including dark energy fairies, exotic matter potatoes, inflation genies and space expansion magic, in your E=0 cult.

How about posting your best evidence of Lambda-CDM over there in that empirical theory of God thread for us, and we'll compare "evidence".

 

[lesliedellow]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

There's something quite amusing about you comparing even *entirely empirical* theories of God to fairies, while you sit there and peddle a pantheon of invisible sky deities, including dark energy fairies, exotic matter potatoes, inflation genies and space expansion magic, in your E=0 cult.

How about posting your best evidence of Lambda-CDM over there in that empirical theory of God thread for us, and we'll compare "evidence".

There is no such thing as "empirical theories of God" We all know that you have bought into positivism, and that is why you are trying to persuade yourself that the existence of God can be empirically verified.

 

[Strathos]

Not to mention derailing every thread into your personal pet peeve.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now KTS, you know like I know you nor science nor Naturalists can prove there is no God.


.

Prove there are no fairies.

Every time I see someone saying that, I die a little inside.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world's most famous atheist, proposed a 7-point scale:

1) Absolute, 100% certainty that there is a god.
2) Strong confidence that there is a god.
3) Slightly lean toward belief in god.
4) Exact 50/50.
5) Slightly lean against belief in god.
6) Strong confidence that there is no god.
7) Absolute, 100% certainty that there is no god.

Dawkins called himself a "6" on this scale. I don't know any atheist who is a "7". The closest thing to a "7" that I have seen is one atheist who argues that the concept of god is incoherent.

On the other hand.... it seems LOTS of people on this forum would be a 1.

 

[bhsmte]

On the other hand.... it seems LOTS of people on this forum would be a 1.

Agree.

I have asked maybe a dozen believers on this board what percentage certainty they would put on their belief in God and only one did not say 100%.

On the other hand, I have yet to see any non-believer, say they were 100% sure a God does not exist. Not saying there isn't, just haven't seen it on these boards.

There is a psychological reason for this that applies to many. When you have a belief on faith and that belief is something that you have much invested in, trying to convince yourself you are 100% certain, is a way of reassuring yourself.

 

[Davian]

Most people who call themselves atheist, are agnostic atheists who do not claim to actively know that god does not exist, but simply do not believe in things for which they have no evidence. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in fairies? If not, what evidence do you have that fairies cannot exist? Or do you simply feel that not believing in fairies is the reasonable default position until someone gives you positive evidence for them?

Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world's most famous atheist, proposed a 7-point scale:

1) Absolute, 100% certainty that there is a god.
2) Strong confidence that there is a god.
3) Slightly lean toward belief in god.
4) Exact 50/50.
5) Slightly lean against belief in god.
6) Strong confidence that there is no god.
7) Absolute, 100% certainty that there is no god.

Dawkins called himself a "6" on this scale. I don't know any atheist who is a "7".

The closest thing to a "7" that I have seen is one atheist who argues that the concept of god is incoherent.

Call that #8 and I'll take it. The problem with #7 is that it is not clear on which god is being referred to, even if God-with-a-capital-g is used.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Case in point.

 

[Strathos]

Agree.

I have asked maybe a dozen believers on this board what percentage certainty they would put on their belief in God and only one did not say 100%.

On the other hand, I have yet to see any non-believer, say they were 100% sure a God does not exist. Not saying there isn't, just haven't seen it on these boards.

There is a psychological reason for this that applies to many. When you have a belief on faith and that belief is something that you have much invested in, trying to convince yourself you are 100% certain, is a way of reassuring yourself.

Or maybe it's because you can experience God personally but you can't experience the non-existence of God.

 

[Michael]

Case in point.

The most amusing point of that comment is that I was apparently the sole the exception to his "rule", and I show more *honest doubt* of my cosmology beliefs than you show about yours.

 

[morningstar2651]

Doesn't matter if I read the article or not.

Yes it does. It's the difference between being upset by the content of the article, and being upset by what you imagine the article is about.

 

[Davian]

The most amusing point of that comment is that I was apparently the sole the exception to his "rule",

Not at all. It was just that your post was handy. This forum is not all about you, you know.

and I show more *honest doubt* of my cosmology beliefs

rotflmao. Honest doubt? That phrase does fly in the face of your injecting of your cosmological beliefs into virtually every thread on this forum.

than you show about yours.

What are my beliefs, exactly?

 

[morningstar2651]

I don't hate them,although I dislike some,especially when they acquire the militant state of mind.
I will respect their(and your)lack of faith,as long as they don't try to trample on my beliefs.Fair enough?

How does one trample on beliefs?

By showing that facts conflict with the beliefs.

 

[dcarrera]

There is a psychological reason for this that applies to many. When you have a belief on faith and that belief is something that you have much invested in, trying to convince yourself you are 100% certain, is a way of reassuring yourself.

Admitting to something less than 100% may be perceived as lack of faith. Believers typically see faith as something good and commendable.

 

[[serious]]

Doesn't matter if I read the article or not, the point was that a certain element of the scientific community is getting bolder, and more open, concerning their gospel.

What business does the question of God have in a 'real' scientific journal? Didn't think they concerned themselves with theology.

 

[Kylie]

Or maybe it's because you can experience God personally but you can't experience the non-existence of God.

May I suggest a correction to this?

Or maybe it's because you can experience something you interpret as God personally but you can't experience the non-existence of God.

 

[Heissonear]

May I suggest a correction to this?

Or maybe it's because you can experience something you interpret as God personally but you can't experience the non-existence of God.

.
KTS, what about the Supernatural Events I have seen? One has been mentioned, the young child's deformed arm. Your statement above is meaningless, right?

.

 

[[serious]]

.
KTS, what about the Supernatural Events I have seen? One has been mentioned, the young child's deformed arm. Your statement above is meaningless, right?

.

"healing" a supposedly shorter arm can be trickery as well.
Go to 15:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6zMllWiJXI

You say that the degree of your example would be beyond what this could explain, but your impression of degree of change in a situation which we have not seen isn't really that compelling.