Scientific Atheism is dishonest

[mindlight]

Scientific atheism asserts that reason and observation are sufficient grounds to disprove the existence of God.

But since the existence of God cannot be disproven by reason or science this must be a dishonest position.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Scientific atheism asserts that reason and observation are sufficient grounds to disprove the existence of God.

No it doesn't.

But since the existence of God cannot be disproven by reason or science this must be a dishonest position.

It simply depends on what you mean by God. Certain versions can and have been disproven. But we cannot disprove God's existence to the satisfaction of every single theist.

Aside from calling atheists liars, what is your argument for or against the existence of God?

 

[mindlight]

No it doesn't.

On what grounds would you say that scientific atheism doubts the existence of God

It simply depends on what you mean by God. Certain versions can and have been disproven. But we cannot disprove God's existence to the satisfaction of every single theist.

Aside from calling atheists liars, what is your argument for or against the existence of God?

Which versions. This OP is about the internal inconsistency of atheism which is refuted by its own idols

 

[Moral Orel]

On what grounds would you say that scientific atheism doubts the existence of God

"Doubts the existence of" =/= "disprove the existence of".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

On what grounds would you say that scientific atheism doubts the existence of God

He is omnipotent but yet cannot say, "Hello."

Which versions.

The omni- and maximally knowledgeable/powerful versions.

This OP is about the internal inconsistency of atheism which is refuted by its own idols

There is nothing inconsistent with atheism. Your omni- deity proposes the inconsistencies.

And the only people relevant to this conversation who have worshipped idols would be nearly every author of the Bible.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

So true. They say Hes not real yet cannot disprove His existence. But its not a topic I talk much about on here because the atheists on here aren't here to learn as if they are seeking Him. They are just here to argue. Which REALLY is ironic and makes me laugh every time. I mean why do atheists spend so much time on a Christian forum arguing about God? If Hes not real and we are crazy people then why spend hours a day on here for your whole life? You must have some deep down fear that Hes real or else you would ignore us/Him like you would any other "crazy" person.

I mean if my friend says he has a flying elephant that follows him around and it "poo" lands everywhere, I wouldn't use an umbrella when with him. I'd just ignore him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Scientific atheism asserts that reason and observation are sufficient grounds to disprove the existence of God.

But since the existence of God cannot be disproven by reason or science this must be a dishonest position.

There's no such thing as "scientific atheism", atheism is simply the non-belief in a God or gods. There's nothing scientific about it because the position of whether there are gods or not (or a God or not) isn't a scientific one, the scientific method says nothing one way or the other, and indeed can't, since the scientific method deals strictly with understanding the workings of the observable universe.

By the same token there's no such thing as "scientific theism" either. For the exact same reasons as stated above.

Whether or not there is a God (or gods) is a matter of philosophy, theology, and/or religion; not science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mindlight]

He is omnipotent but yet cannot say, "Hello."

So you reason on the basis of an absence of what you would define as a hello that there is no omnipotent being.

Sorry but that fits the definition that I gave. On the basis of your rationalisations and observations about reality you deny the existence of a God. But actually logically the absence of a hello does not prove that for a number of possible reasons:

1) He has never said hello to you
2) he said hello but you filtered it out as an unacceptable version of hello
3) He said hello but you were not listening for it.

The omni- and maximally knowledgeable/powerful versions.

Again you could not disprove the existence of a God who was Omnipotent or Omniscient on the basis of your own reasoning's or observations so calling yourself an atheist for scientific reasons is an untenable position to hold.

It is ridiculous to assert an ignorant being would know better than an all-knowing being as to whether he existed or not

 

[mindlight]

"Doubts the existence of" =/= "disprove the existence of".

Agreed and doubt was probably the wrong road to use. A person might be an honest agnostic for scientific reasons but given the limitations of the scientific method they could not assert that there was no God on the basis of science.

 

[mindlight]

So true. They say Hes not real yet cannot disprove His existence. But its not a topic I talk much about on here because the atheists on here aren't here to learn as if they are seeking Him. They are just here to argue. Which REALLY is ironic and makes me laugh every time. I mean why do atheists spend so much time on a Christian forum arguing about God? If Hes not real and we are crazy people then why spend hours a day on here for your whole life? You must have some deep down fear that Hes real or else you would ignore us/Him like you would any other "crazy" person.

I mean if my friend says he has a flying elephant that follows him around and it "poo" lands everywhere, I wouldn't use an umbrella when with him. I'd just ignore him.

The determination to argue Gods non existence does seem to contradict any certainty they profess about that fact. One thinks he may protest too much....

But this thread is really about the internal inconsistency of calling oneself an atheist for scientific reasons. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God and so it is not grounds for certainty in asserting ones atheism.

 

[mindlight]

There's no such thing as "scientific atheism", atheism is simply the non-belief in a God or gods. There's nothing scientific about it because the position of whether there are gods or not (or a God or not) isn't a scientific one, the scientific method says nothing one way or the other, and indeed can't, since the scientific method deals strictly with understanding the workings of the observable universe.

By the same token there's no such thing as "scientific theism" either. For the exact same reasons as stated above.

Whether or not there is a God (or gods) is a matter of philosophy, theology, and/or religion; not science.

-CryptoLutheran

In practice I disagree about this. A great many atheists I meet assert they are so for scientific reasons. Maybe the label scientific atheists causes as much controversy as the label Christian science (referring as it does to some cult) but the meaning should be clear. When I say scientific atheist I refer to a person who disbelieves in the existence of God for what they suppose are scientific reasons. Since science , as you seem to agree, cannot yield certainty either way on the existence of God, it cannot be the basis for being an atheist. Therefore the idea of a scientific atheist is oxymoronic and is not a tenable position.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In practice I disagree about this. A great many atheists I meet assert they are so for scientific reasons. Maybe the label scientific atheists causes as much controversy as the label Christian science (referring as it does to some cult) but the meaning should be clear. When I say scientific atheist I refer to a person who disbelieves in the existence of God for what they suppose are scientific reasons. Since science , as you seem to agree, cannot yield certainty either way on the existence of God, it cannot be the basis for being an atheist. Therefore the idea of a scientific atheist is oxymoronic and is not a tenable position.

An atheist may adhere to the belief that the only things which are real are those which can be known by the scientific method, or by way of empirical evidence (philosophical empiricism) but this still remains a philosophical position, not a scientific one. One can no more use science to "disprove" God then one can use science to "disprove" fairies or invisible pink unicorns; that is science cannot be used when it comes to something that is by its very nature unfalsifiable, falsifiability is necessary in order for science to be applicable.

But one can, for example, state they do not believe in God, or fairies, or invisible pink unicorns because there is no evidence to support such a belief; as a Christian I neither believe in fairies or invisible pink unicorns; but I do believe in God--the non-belief or belief has nothing to do with science, but has to do with philosophy, theology, and/or religion. Fundamentally my non-belief in fairies is like the atheist's non-belief in gods, and neither is a "scientific" position any more than the belief in gods or fairies is a "scientific" position; since science does not deal with unfalsifiable claims and, further, the scientific method can only address the observable universe. One could be an excellent scientist and believe in fairies, since a good scientist is such by their adherence to the scientific method. And, indeed, in the world of science there are many religious and non-religious scientists engaging in precisely the same science, using the same methods, and since they are being faithful to the scientific method reaching the same sorts of conclusions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mindlight]

An atheist may adhere to the belief that the only things which are real are those which can be known by the scientific method, or by way of empirical evidence (philosophical empiricism) but this still remains a philosophical position, not a scientific one. One can no more use science to "disprove" God then one can use science to "disprove" fairies or invisible pink unicorns; that is science cannot be used when it comes to something that is by its very nature unfalsifiable, falsifiability is necessary in order for science to be applicable.

Philosophical empiricism is an assumption shared by many atheists - agreed. I do not see the need to differentiate this in any substantial way from the assertion that the scientific method is the means by which we disprove or prove things. Basically scientific evidence is is the kind of evidence they consider to be empirically real. But even accepting this assumption one could not disprove the existence of God. As you say the existence of God is neither falsifiable or unfalsifiable by merely empirical means.

But one can, for example, state they do not believe in God, or fairies, or invisible pink unicorns because there is no evidence to support such a belief; as a Christian I neither believe in fairies or invisible pink unicorns; but I do believe in God--the non-belief or belief has nothing to do with science, but has to do with philosophy, theology, and/or religion. Fundamentally my non-belief in fairies is like the atheist's non-belief in gods, and neither is a "scientific" position any more than the belief in gods or fairies is a "scientific" position; since science does not deal with unfalsifiable claims and, further, the scientific method can only address the observable universe.

-CryptoLutheran

If the only things that we could accept as real were things that an atheist version of the scientific method could prove then we could not accept a lot of things that many atheists hold to. Evolution for example or abiogenesis is neither falsifiable or unfalsifiable by the scientific method. There are no experiments that can prove or disprove it. We can argue by analogy with scientifically verifiable truths and build a consistent theory but not directly on the basis of direct experiments.

Also since we do not have all the evidence we could not argue the case that science cannot support the existence of God. If we had all the evidence maybe it would. Fact is we do not either way and are unlikely to ever be in a position where that fact changes without some kind of Divine assistance.

Fundamentally this is a matter of faith in the end - agreed. Christians can argue their view is internally consistent and possible cause it is based on faith in a Being who is sufficient grounds on the basis of which we can make absolute claims. A scientific atheist by contrast is a finite, mortal and flawed creature that cannot verify anything beyond the bubble of his own existence (or by extension humanities shared existence) and yet asserts that his reason and observations are sufficient grounds to make the absolute claim of Gods non existence.

Agnosticism could be an honest position that assumes philosophical empiricism but atheism cannot be.

 

[ViaCrucis]

but atheism cannot be.

Sure it can, atheism is simply the non-belief in gods. "I do not believe in any gods because I have no reason to" is a perfectly honest, and rather reasonable, position to take.

I don't believe in leprechauns, I think that's an honest and reasonable position to take. Don't you? I don't need to "prove" there are no leprechauns, and I haven't used the scientific method to conclude the leprechauns do not or could not exist (since, again, we're dealing with empirical observations and data, and if leprechauns are a kind of fae creature that exists chiefly in an immaterial otherworld, then that renders them unfalsifiable).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mindlight]

Sure it can, atheism is simply the non-belief in gods. "I do not believe in any gods because I have no reason to" is a perfectly honest, and rather reasonable, position to take.

I don't believe in leprechauns, I think that's an honest and reasonable position to take. Don't you? I don't need to "prove" there are no leprechauns, and I haven't used the scientific method to conclude the leprechauns do not or could not exist (since, again, we're dealing with empirical observations and data, and if leprechauns are a kind of fae creature that exists chiefly in an immaterial otherworld, then that renders them unfalsifiable).

-CryptoLutheran

But that is not scientific atheism as is the theme of this thread. Atheism based on a scientific appraisal of evidences related to God / gods cannot yield certainty about their existence or non existence. Therefore the absolute assertion of an atheist that there is no God cannot be reconciled with the method used to substantiate the claim. They could be agnostic on the basis of this method but not atheist.

The proving or disproving of the existence of leprechauns is also not possible by science again highlighting the limits of the scientific method. But from the perspective of the absolute assertion of Gods existence implied by Christian faith or the absolute assertion of Gods non existence by an atheist it is also not relevant. The existence or non existence of leprechauns neither adds nor detracts from the case for Gods existence.

Since science is shown to be an ineffective tool when making assertions about things we cannot reliably and repeatedly see with our senses it is not the appropriate tool to use when discussing Gods existence.

An atheist can say he believes that God does not exist but he cannot assert that on the basis of science or claim scientific certainty to this claim. He like a Christian holds the position he holds by faith.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So true. They say Hes not real yet cannot disprove His existence. But its not a topic I talk much about on here because the atheists on here aren't here to learn as if they are seeking Him. They are just here to argue. Which REALLY is ironic and makes me laugh every time. I mean why do atheists spend so much time on a Christian forum arguing about God? If Hes not real and we are crazy people then why spend hours a day on here for your whole life? You must have some deep down fear that Hes real or else you would ignore us/Him like you would any other "crazy" person.

I mean if my friend says he has a flying elephant that follows him around and it "poo" lands everywhere, I wouldn't use an umbrella when with him. I'd just ignore him.

Perhaps our motivation is the idea that religion has impeded upon or violated human rights every single time it has been in power, combined with the fact that it is constantly trying to amass more power.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So you reason on the basis of an absence of what you would define as a hello that there is no omnipotent being.

Sorry but that fits the definition that I gave. On the basis of your rationalisations and observations about reality you deny the existence of a God. But actually logically the absence of a hello does not prove that for a number of possible reasons:

1) He has never said hello to you
2) he said hello but you filtered it out as an unacceptable version of hello
3) He said hello but you were not listening for it.

Ok, suppose he said hello and I missed it. Well, if I'm a "scientific" atheist then I should subject this to science, so it should be repeatable. So have God repeat it. You have to give me that if you want to drag science into this.

Again you could not disprove the existence of a God who was Omnipotent or Omniscient on the basis of your own reasoning's or observations so calling yourself an atheist for scientific reasons is an untenable position to hold.

I already did in my thread "God, Gödel, and omniscience."

It is ridiculous to assert an ignorant being would know better than an all-knowing being as to whether he existed or not

Ok so on what basis do you reject any of the non-Christian deities?

 

[bhsmte]

Scientific atheism asserts that reason and observation are sufficient grounds to disprove the existence of God.

But since the existence of God cannot be disproven by reason or science this must be a dishonest position.

Strawman.

Atheism merely states, there is no reliable evidence, to believe a God exists.

 

[Moral Orel]

I mean why do atheists spend so much time on a Christian forum arguing about God? If Hes not real and we are crazy people then why spend hours a day on here for your whole life? You must have some deep down fear that Hes real or else you would ignore us/Him like you would any other "crazy" person.

I mean if my friend says he has a flying elephant that follows him around and it "poo" lands everywhere, I wouldn't use an umbrella when with him. I'd just ignore him.

I've posted this video before, but it's the perfect response to what you've just stated.

 

[Moral Orel]

A great many atheists I meet assert they are so for scientific reasons.

Perhaps you misunderstand them though. I've never met an atheist or read anything written by an atheist that says science proves there are no gods. I have seen many times it purported that a god is unnecessary to explain the universe we live in, though. But again, there's a huge difference between those two positions.

I've also seen how science contradicts a purely literal interpretation of parts of the Bible, and I've seen atheists say things like, "See? The Bible isn't true because of these errors that science has shown us". But at worst this argument only means that the God in The Bible is not real, and it says nothing about the existence of any other gods. At best though, it can only show that the Bible is not to be read as a 100% factual/literal record of events.