Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

[Diogenes]

Resolved: Christian apologists only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they believe those conclusions verify some Biblical claim.
Sub-issue:
It is intellectually biased and inconsistent to claim "science provides convincing evidence" only when such evidence appears to favor the Christian fundamentalist POV, then to turn around and favor "divine revelation" over science, when the scientific evidence does not support a Biblical literalist POV.

[Miles]

Maybe some of you don't really know what they are...

We do. And it is not deniers of God. Straw man representations of what we are don't help advance understanding.


Tcg

The point is: you can describe what you feel, BUT NOT other ... that is a fallacy.

It's not a matter of feelings but rather of fact and I've presented facts not feelings.


Tcg

What facts? Well, for some other day it will be that I read your answer, perhaps. I guess my interest in this conversation has expired.

Anyway, I don't think atheism is having no evidence for the existence of a Creator. I think atheism is not wanting to accept that we had a Creator, and no matter how much proof you give them, they're not going to change their minds.

Have a nice day.

Oh my god, this is sooo sad. How many times does it have to be explained that the vast majority of atheists don't deny the existence of god, but simply lack a belief in god/gods. You do understand the difference don't you? That it has absolutely nothing to do with "not wanting to accept that we had a Creator" or anything else, but with the on-going .Lack. Of. Convincing..Evidence.

Here: If god could actually be proven to exist the vast majority of atheists would do away with their lack of belief and agree that god does indeed exist. This doesn't mean they'd necessarily venerate or worship him, particularly the god of the Bible, but simply acknowledge his existence. And that's it. Such atheists would become believers. As for those atheists who denied the existence of god a far greater "about-face" would likely be necessary. Not that they would never become believers in god's existence, but it might take a bit longer to accept the evidence---if at all.




.

[Purple Knight]

If god could actually be proven to exist the vast majority of atheists would do away with their lack of belief and agree that god does indeed exist. This doesn't mean they'd necessarily venerate or worship him, particularly the god of the Bible, but simply acknowledge his existence. And that's it. Such atheists would become believers.

The blued part is very, very relevant. To a Believer with a capital B, thinking God exists and worshiping it are basically synonymous and I think uncoupling them is the very simple resolution of this dispute.

At least for me, Eloi has a point, and there is something no evidence would make me believe, but it's not whether or not all those things in the Bible literally happened. Maybe they did. Probably not, but maybe they did. I wasn't there. This point of closed-mindedness occurs for me if someone is trying to present evidence for God's actions in the Bible being morally correct. I won't believe that. Ever. Maybe God has such perfect knowledge that he's outside the bounds of morality and fine, but I'm not, and I live in a universe where I cannot do certain things because they are wrong. That's my existence and God is not relevant to it.

Anyway, I don't think atheism is having no evidence for the existence of a Creator. I think atheism is not wanting to accept that we had a Creator, and no matter how much proof you give them, they're not going to change their minds.

There might be a drive that exists that's similar to what you're describing, but it's about moral accountability and moral deference, not the existence of any particular thing. You were made by your parents, because they mated. That's not up for debate; that's a fact. But I don't believe you are morally subject to your parents and their will just because they made you. If they tell you to do wrong, you should refuse.

If I cook up a person from a test tube, that doesn't mean I have moral dominion over that person or that they can't call me out as corrupt. If there were a legion of Nazi supermen in a Nazi universe who stood up and said, no, creators, what you are doing is wrong, I would commend those rebels.

In short, I don't care if God exists. I think he probably doesn't but ultimately I don't care.

I simply deny that he is God. I deny that anyone is.

This doesn't mean I can do whatever I want - it actually means I can't, no matter who tells me I can.

[brunumb]

That definition of your group implies that atheists would change their minds if there was proof that God exists (and there is) ... but that is false. An atheist will ALWAYS try to deny or reinterpret the evidence for God's existence. The one who would change his position would be the agnostic.

To start with, we are not a group as in the sense that different religious sects can be regarded as separate groups. Atheists do not need to be organised in any way. It is simply a term applied to anyone who does not believe in the existence of gods.

One would hope that any rational person would change their minds when presented with evidence contradicting any position they currently hold. I think that would apply to atheists and their atheism as much as anything else. Atheists hold their position precisely because they consider that they have not been presented with any compelling evidence for the existence of gods. I would add that, as I see it, theists on the whole have not reached their position of belief in gods through the scrutiny of any evidence. The vast majority are inculcated with their beliefs through childhood indoctrination. When asked what would make them change their minds, the most common response I have seen is "nothing".

If there is proof of (rather, compelling evidence for) the existence of God as you suggest, then please present it for evaluation. Did you reach your position of belief through that evidence, or were you always a believer but now simply trying to retrofit a rationale for that belief?

Most atheists would probably concede that they are also agnostic. In other words, they would say that they do not know if gods exist or not, but they currently do not believe that they do. The same probably applies to theists. They really cannot know that gods exist, but they just believe that they do.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #8]

Interestingly, and to readjust an earlier comment, atheist members of the scientific community have also committed many dishonest acts to deny God. Does anyone remember the famous Piltdown man?

What evidence is there that Charles Dawson (the Piltdown Man forger) was an atheist? He was a serial fraudster and wanted publicity for supposedly finding the "missing link", so he manufactured the whole thing. But I don't know of any evidence that he was an atheist, or that he perpetrated his hoax to deny the existence of gods. Why do you think he was an "atheist member of the scientific community"?

[Miles]

If god could actually be proven to exist the vast majority of atheists would do away with their lack of belief and agree that god does indeed exist. This doesn't mean they'd necessarily venerate or worship him, particularly the god of the Bible, but simply acknowledge his existence. And that's it. Such atheists would become believers.

The blued part is very, very relevant. To a Believer with a capital B, thinking God exists and worshiping it are basically synonymous and I think uncoupling them is the very simple resolution of this dispute.

What dispute is that?


.

[The Barbarian]

It seems to me that it's human nature to take whatever evidence there is and try to fit it into whatever worldviews one might have. Even scientists who disagree on some detail of science tend to do this.

We should do better, and often we do. But not often enough.

[Bust Nak]

That definition of your group implies that atheists would change their minds if there was proof that God exists (and there is) ... but that is false. An atheist will ALWAYS try to deny or reinterpret the evidence for God's existence.

Proofs can be refuted, day in day out, even right here on this forum; what counts as evidence for one person isn't evidence for another. That's why it's so important to insist on empirical evidence, repeatable, testable in a controlled environment. Atheists would change our minds if there was empirical evidence for God's existence (but there isn't.)

[Miles]

The phrase "the use of science" defines science as a tool. People can put whatever use they want to any tool. For a believer, the best use that can be given to any tool is to glorify the Creator of the material Universe and of our mind to observe it, analyze it and produce things from both.

Atheists try to use "science" to deny God... And yet science IS NOT ATHEIST, it is just a tool.

Actually, atheists pretty much use science just as Christians do, Jews do, Muslims do, etc. do; for the education and betterment of mankind. They certainly don't need it to deny god. If that's what they want to do all they need do is assert it. But more often atheists don't deny god, but simply lack belief in its existence.


.

[Purple Knight]

If god could actually be proven to exist the vast majority of atheists would do away with their lack of belief and agree that god does indeed exist. This doesn't mean they'd necessarily venerate or worship him, particularly the god of the Bible, but simply acknowledge his existence. And that's it. Such atheists would become believers.

The blued part is very, very relevant. To a Believer with a capital B, thinking God exists and worshiping it are basically synonymous and I think uncoupling them is the very simple resolution of this dispute.

What dispute is that?


.

Eloi thinks that even if God appeared and proclaimed himself, armed with absolute proof of every last thing in the Bible being true, atheists wouldn't believe in him.

In the way that believe in specifically means worship, Eloi is probably right. In the way of just admitting that being's existence, you're right.

I don't think there's much of a disagreement, honestly, and the main sticking point is that for believers, thinking the God of the Bible exists and worshiping it are synonymous.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13]
You don't need to repeat it so many times... everybody knows how some of you want to define what "atheism" is.

Apparently, I do because it keeps getting misrepresented as a denial of God. That is not what atheism is. Denial implies that one knows that something exists but denies its existence. That's not the case here. And I'll repeat it for clarification, it is a lack of belief in god/gods.


Tcg

I do not see it the way you do.

That definition of your group implies that atheists would change their minds if there was proof that God exists (and there is) ... but that is false. An atheist will ALWAYS try to deny or reinterpret the evidence for God's existence. The one who would change his position would be the agnostic.

Maybe some of you don't really know what they are... or maybe you should stop trying to make such narrow, ambiguous definitions, or try to stop making them at all, and start thinking independently and not as a philosophical party or not based on labels. Who knows?

A Christian is a person that worships a book. That was fun! For those that care about being honest and accurate, I would suggest we allow Christians to define themselves.

Not those dirty atheists though. They don't get to define themselves. They are god deniers afterall (which makes as much sense as accusing a grown adult of being a Santa Claus denier). Reality informs us that there is no need to deny something you don't hold a belief in.

Readers, consider why some Christians would deny this fact. It's hard to imagine the arrogance it would take to look an atheist in the eye, tell them that they know the god concept in question is true, yet they choose to deny it.

Let your light so shine!

Proverbs 16:18
18 Pride comes before disaster, and arrogance before a fall.