Atheists

Now, atheism is all well and good, but stop trying to pass it off as scientific. (not accusing, just making a point.)
Atheism is no more scientific than Christianity.

The only (ONLY) scientific statement that can be made about God is as follows:
"Because there is no evidence supporting or denying the existence of God, we can not scientifically make any statements about the subject."

Scientifically, you dont even talk about it, because science deals with evidence, and there is no eveidence for or against any diety.

 

"Because there is no evidence supporting or denying the existence of Unicorns, we can not scientifically make any statements about the subject."

 

That's right. But we know intuitively that there aren't any unicorns.

 

i don't like how people always assume there is no evidence disproving god.
it's there if you have a critical eye.

 

Ok. I'll bite. what is it?

 

There is no evidence disproving God, because the idea of God has nothing to do with proof.
You may intuitivly know that there is no God, but my point is that intuition is not science.

I'm down with atheism, but no true scientist is an athiest.

Science is pure agnosticism.

 

Uhhm, no, scientific hypothesis and theories are based on observable, measurable, quantifiable, etc evidence. You can't start by saying there is nothing disproving something so therefore it is. That's the same as saying everything is true until proven otherwise. That isn't reasonable. You have to have a empirically evidentiary basis for supporting a conclusion that there is a god, if that evidence doesn't exist, then its not a valid hypothesis or theory.

 

True, but beside the point. I don't think anybody is claiming that theism has the status of a scientific hypothesis, theory, or law--just that there's no scientific basis for saying there is no God, unicorn, hobgoblin,Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Saying "There is no God" is a definite assertion about reality, that needs to be supported by substantial evidence, or at least a good reason for believing that. If I said there is a God, Unicorn, etc., I'd be expected to back it up. Atheists (as opposed to agnostics) need to be able to do the same when they say "There is no God".

I think good reasons for not believing in unicorns, hobgoblins, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters,are that: (1) there have been no recent sitings; (2) the logical and evidentiary bases for their existence is weak to non-existent;and (3) they don't fit well with an extensive body of knowledge developed by rigorous scientific methodology. What about ghosts? In channel surfing, I've come across occasional documentaries on the Travel and Discovery channels.purporting to show there are such things, and people I know claim to have seen them. However, I disbelieve in those, too, for reasons #2 & 3. God? There are lots of people who claim to have experiences with Him. I have buddies who pal around with Him and go fish'n with Him every weekend, although He hasn't asked me to come along. As for a logical or evidentiary basis, there's a lot of pro and con. Check out the scientists arguing on behalf of the "finely tuned universe" theory and the logical go-around over the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But if I were arguing for atheism, I'd go for #3.

 

Wow, way to put words into my mouth, dipshit.

Where did I say that nothing disproving it means therefor it is?

I said there is no proof OR disproof, so it is not the realm of science to even SPEAK about God.

GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE, WHETHER THE ARGUMENT IS FOR OR AGAINST.

Atheist are as bad as Filthy Christians.

 

Your both still asking to prove a negative. In what way does a monotheistic god differ, in terms of credibility, from any of the other thousands of other deities that are worshipped on Earth? So you would ask me to disprove all of them as well. They can't all be true, due to obvious logical inconsistencies between them.

The general idea of god does have serious implications in science, when god is said to be omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. This should have obvious effects in physics, geology, astronomy and most or all of the other sciences. Outside of a handful of "creation" scientists, the vast majority of scientists have not found any evidence of these effects. So unless the definition of god just becomes more ambiguous, vague and mysterious so that these effects can't be see, then well it doesn't exist in the evidence so far collected. From that, the scientific point of view, would be there is no reason to believe that a god exists.

 

When you make an assertion that the negative is true, you do have an obligation to prove it--if you're truly rational. When you say "There is no.." you're making a claim. Neither of us said anything about a monotheistic god. If you say there is no such thing, or a pantheistic one, or polytheistic gods, for that matter, you've taken on the burden of proof. Neither of us, as I recall, made any assertions about there being any deity or deities at all. The existence or non-existence of an entity, supernatural or otherwise, does not depend on whether or not scientists have found evidence of it. I think I did explain how the existence of god(s) differs from other mythical beings, like unicorns, and the criteria that should be considered in evaluating claims that such things exist. Naturalism is just an assumption, although a reasonable one that I accept. If you say you're basing your claim on intuition, I could go along with that, provided you show some respect for those who have the opposite intuition. Although there are many different ideas of God or gods, and many of them are mutually exclusive, they all do have in common the belief that the universe was intelligently designed, and have submitted a certain amount of supporting evedence--finely tuned universe, Kalam Cosmological Argument, probabalistic arguments, personal religious experiences, etc. Atheists have comebacks for these, but that's not the same as proof. Atheists seem to be saying naturalistic arguments are sufficient to explain the universe, but the contention is still speculative. Instead of relying on who has the burden of proof , give us some evidence.

 

Its the utter lack of evidence of something that is supposed to be everywhere, that should be obvious proof.

 

I think it would be reasonable to doubt such a "something", if there were "utter lack of evidence" and it is "supposed to be everywhere". But I wouldn't take it as "obvious proof", because the "something" might simply be secretive, aloof and/or uncooperative. The latter seems to be the case with Yaweh, who is not the sort of God to jump through hoops for scientists or skeptics. As far as He was concerned, if you didn't believe in Him, that was your problem, not His.

There are two other problems with your statement as proof of the non-existence of God. First, it posits "utter lack of evidence", when actually a certain amount of evidence has been put forward (e.g.,reported religious experiences, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, evidence that one or another biological system like DNA manifests Complex Specified Information indicative of Intelligent Design, finely tuned universe arguments, etc.) It may not convince you, but it's not exactly utterly lacking. Second, it assumes that the "something" "is supposed to be everywhere". That supposition may derive from Judeo-Christian and Muslim theologians' concepts of God as an omnipresent,omnipotent, omniscient being. But how would they know that? An extraordinarily potent, scientent, present force would seem "omni" to humans, but might have limitations. Deists, including many of our Founding Fathers, believed that the God who designed the universe was very hands off, although they inferred His existence from His handiwork. So once again, your conclusion may be right, and you may be justified in disbelieving in God, but you haven't made your case by "obvious proof". Why do you need to?

 

A god that intervenes is a god that can be tested by emperical science. A god that doesn't intervene is irrelevant.

 

I would also like everyone to stop speaking so badly about my unicorn. My unicorn rocks.

 

Excellent post. Theres millions of people who believe in God because personal experinces. Thats one proof of God, because i highly doubt those million has been all lies.

 

I should have said credible evidence and I am talking about the judeo-christian definition the god in the bible, since that is by far the most common/popular belief. I think is a far greater chance that unicorns exist because there could be one hiding somewhere, but I don't think an omnipotent god would/could hide, or at least be totally out of character for the one described in the bible.

 

wf:

The assertion that there is no god requires absolutely no evidence. Nor does the assertion that there is a god require evidence, and so continues to be ridiculous wherever it appears.

God is beneath us.

 

At one time, hundreds of millions of people used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe and the entire cosmos revolved around it, therefore that is proof that the entire cosmos revolved around the earth at one time.

 

Or: There are millions of people who don't believe in God because of personal experience. That's one proof of no God, because I highly doubt those millions have been lying.