Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol 449 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  C0ntr013r

  what do you guys wish to accomplish? is there a belief you are trying to promote? or just arguing for the sake of circular arguing? Are you trying to make a case for the abrahamic god? or any other myth? if not then we are all in the same boat.

  Is this directed towards our discussion?

  Atheist are all agnostic technically.

  Many Atheists are Agnostic but some are also Gnostic.

  I don't believe anyone who would be labeled and atheist would be stupid enough to say they are certain there is not

  Well, yes there are some. Many people get there beliefs from other sources that careful study. You are probably familiar with this as an ex JW. This is true for Atheists as well, some adapt a popular belief without a good understanding of it etc...

  Not saying that all Gnostic's do this of course.

  If understand correctly Saintbertholdt is one of those few Gnostic's and I am trying to show him that this position is unreasonable because it is based on a logical fallacy. Hence all the links to logical fallacies

  Maybe it is pointless, I get the feeling he is starting to understand that he is wrong but wont admit it, idk.

  Anyone else with similar beliefs might alter them after reading this thread. All Gnostic's, both Theists and Atheist (most Gnostic's are probably Theists) might benefit from this discussion, idk
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Most of the sharper atheists I know don't "believe in" anything. There are things we have relatively strong certainty about and things we are unsure about. The things with strong certainty are things we are said to "know" and the things we're unsure about are things we are happy to admit we "don't know."

  When things are imagined, we view them as not literally existing. When people imagine a thing and then pose the hypothesis that that thing exists in the tangible world it is not incumbent upon others to either believe or prove the thing doesn't exist. Nor is it inappropriate for others to assert, "No, that thing doesn't exist."
  
  This doesn't pose a problem or a conflict because we allow things we "don't know" and have previously asserted don't exist to become things we "know" are real when evidence comes along to build certainty in it. As for god/gods/God/ghosts/souls/sasquatch/chupacabra/sharknados/etc. we're simply waiting for evidence and in the meantime we can appropriately say, "No, those things do not exist."
  
• 

  C0ntr013r

  and in the meantime we can appropriately say, "No, those things do not exist."

  I am confused, you say that but don't mean it?

  The sharper minds would say that we can "know" nothing except those thing that are known thorough definitions. A examples of what we can "know" is:

  A triangle has 3 edges and 3 sides because it is it very definition.

  I have not understood Saintbertholdt comments to mean "No, those things do not exist." but I don't know.

  If I understand correctly he is trying to prove through evidence that God can't exist.

  Hence my responds: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  And that's where the discussion started.

  I respect you're view and share it.

  
  
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  1. So how did belief enter science?
  2. How did scientists get to that belief?

  It did not, that was my point.

  C0ntr013r,

  So not believing in fairies is NOT a belief (according to you). That's great.

  You didn't answer the second question: How did scientists get to that belief/non-belief (insert whatever semantics you want) So let me answer it for you: Fairies are not considered a part of pollination because there's just no evidence for it. Its wasteful to include it in ones thinking when dealing with the subject and you certainly do not explore it when drawing conclusions.You rather look for causes that reasonably explain a phenomena.

  And by your own admission non-belief is not a matter of faith at all.

  So what is it then because it is used in science every day?

  Could it be that it forms a part of the technique of scientific investigation?

  So just as non-belief in fairy's is scientific, so non-belief in god is also scientific.

  In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however. That is why science remains open to new evidence. It is not dogmatic.
  

  Now you can argue that 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is the most valid course in life for your own special exceptions. Some people choose god, others ufo visitations, yeti's, the lochness monster or any combination, but everyday practical science and discovery does not ponder absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Rather it focuses on what can be proven through following tangible evidence.

  And at this particular point there is no mathematical or scientific model that even remotely hints at god. Never mind any sound physical proof.

  Science does not ponder god just like it does not ponder fairies.

  Its not a belief as you specifically pointed out, therefore not a matter of faith.

  Atheism - scientific.

  
  

  
  
  
• 

  freemindfade

  Semantics aside at some point with fallacy and all you have to say, fairies don't make sense. Not only do they not exist (which I cannot prove) it is ridiculous to believe in them

  The involvement of a "creator" and his affects on humans, and their earth, and the ideas that we are at the center of the universe have slowly been chipped away, not by people who were looking for GOD, but people trying to understand the physical universe around them, rationally, not in fairy land. God gets further and further away, more and more a small idea to put responsibility to the beginning of the physical universe and nothing more.

  We used to look up and see a comet and say the gods were riding by and bringing some natural disasters... the people who didn't believe were persecuted for heresy.

  Sometimes things just don't make sense, all arguments aside.
• 

  Qcmbr

  A believer in a God lies out of both sides of their mouth when they claim that atheists are unable to disprove ANY god. The moment the believer defines the ONE god they happen to believe in it is a very basic set of steps to scientifically dismantle those claims since the definition of a God delineates what God is and what God is not and ascribes qualities to such an entity, qualities that can be checked to see if they hold up to scientific investigation.

  Any believers wanna try?
• 

  freemindfade

  Qcmbr you might be the forth or fifth person in this thread to ask that lol I know I did, cofty did, they love to stir it up for no reason
• 

  breakfast of champions

  Well then, I'm just going to cut to the chase and label myself as unscientific. 😜
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  freemindfade,

  We used to look up and see a comet and say the gods were riding by and bringing some natural disasters... the people who didn't believe were persecuted for heresy.

  I use fairies specifically because there are old books, folklore and tales that abound with them.

  Just as tales, old books and folklore abound about god.

  They both claim extraordinary powers and both have influenced human thinking to some extent.

  As you point out sometimes things just don't make sense. (like the existence of fairies)

  This is the result of humanity becoming more rational and less superstitious.

  
  
• 

  C0ntr013r

  So not believing in fairies is NOT a belief (according to you). That's great.

  More straw men? Read my comment again. Belief did NOT enter science.

  
  

  You didn't answer the second question: How did scientists get to that belief/non-belief (insert whatever semantics you want)

  It does not deal with belief in the first place...

  Science is not a entity that can hold a belief... It is a system we use to investigate the world, it has no beliefs.

  And by your own admission non-belief is not a matter of faith at all.

  ???

  
  

  So what is it then because it is used in science every day?

  No...

  So just as non-belief in fairy's is scientific, so non-belief in god is also scientific.

  You put beliefs into science, not me...

  Now you can argue that 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is the most valid course in life for your own special exceptions.

  But it is a logical fallacy... Therefore it is a faulty way to think, you are going to come to wrong conclusions when you use it like all the other logical fallacies...

  
  

  Its not a belief as you specifically pointed out, therefore not a matter of faith.

  Well it is not that either, but It does not deal with belief

  
  

  Atheism - scientific.

  Just like Atheism never deal with science and science never deal with Atheism...