The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Reply to topic
paarsurrey1
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:52 am  Science does not support Atheism, does it? Reply with quote

Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 11: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:57 am
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
William wrote:

[Replying to post 9 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
Atheism is just a position of indecision


No. Atheism is a neutral position. It is the position one has in relation to ignorance, in that it holds no belief in GODs not that it has made a decision one way or the other about the existence of GODs. Agnosticism (which is regarded as being a subset of atheism) is more the position of not having made a decision, of being undecided.

Subgroups of atheism however, do involve decisive positions.

"Truthful Religion" has nothing to do with whether science does or does not support atheism, as per the OP.


I rather suspect you are disagreeing with yourself here, far more effectively than I could. The 'neutral' position is to say: 'I do not know. God may or may not exist.' That is a decision. That is agnosticism.

Atheism is different*. It is a definite belief that God does not exist. That is a decision. In the absence of objective evidence either way, it is quite as much a faith position as theism.

Atheists may want to redefine the term, to make their position seem more rational and appealing, but this is merely a disingenuous attempt at deception that debases the currency of language on which we all depend for clarity of thought.

If atheists want to redefine their position as agnosticism, then what word could they, would they, should they, substitute for atheism?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Quote:
* Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 12: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:40 am
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
[Replying to post 11 by 2ndRateMind]

Quote:
I rather suspect you are disagreeing with yourself here, far more effectively than I could. The 'neutral' position is to say: 'I do not know. God may or may not exist.' That is a decision. That is agnosticism.


What I said - agnosticism is a indecisive position.

Atheism is not. It simply lacks belief in GODs. It is not a position where indecision is relevant. it is neutral in that regard.

Indecision is not neutral. It hasn't made up its mind one way or the other. Atheism has. Atheism does not to have belief in any GODs. And in that, it is a neutral position.

Quote:
Atheism is different*. It is a definite belief that God does not exist.


It is a consistent disagreement among atheists. For example:

Quote:
Atheism is not a belief that there is no God. Atheism is simply the position that there is no credible or compelling evidence to suggest that there might be a God.
[Quote= Divine Insight]


A dictionary does not help them to make up their minds.

Quote:
Atheists may want to redefine the term, to make their position seem more rational and appealing, but this is merely a disingenuous attempt at deception that debases the currency of language on which we all depend for clarity of thought.


It is the nature of language to be like this because *humans*. Smile

Quote:
If atheists want to redefine their position as agnosticism, then what word could they, would they, should they, substitute for atheism?


Time and again the argument has been that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. I have seen atheists staunchly argue that agnosticism is an atheist position rather than a neutral one. Certainly it is apparent in my experience that atheists especially seem to loath the thought of there being a fence sitting position.

*shrugs*

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 13: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:05 pm
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
William wrote:

[Replying to post 9 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
Atheism is just a position of indecision


No. Atheism is a neutral position. It is the position one has in relation to ignorance, in that it holds no belief in GODs not that it has made a decision one way or the other about the existence of GODs. Agnosticism (which is regarded as being a subset of atheism) is more the position of not having made a decision, of being undecided.

Subgroups of atheism however, do involve decisive positions.

"Truthful Religion" has nothing to do with whether science does or does not support atheism, as per the OP.

I suggest that if you want to express your beliefs in what you consider to be "Truthful Religion" you can either create a thread in the Non-Christian Religions and Philosophies forum section (due to the obvious belief you have in regard to what the "Truthful Religion") or perhaps use your tokens to purchase a thread of your own which no one else can comment on, in the Members Notes section of the forum

I don't agree with one's reasoning, one need not agree with me on it though and may stick to it.
The critical postmortem the Atheism people make religion subject to, they don't accept that on Atheism though Atheism is by far most unreasonable. So from our point of view, they entered Atheism position/no-position without any positive evidence on its side from science, hence its refutation needs no evidence. It is a temporary abode, as soon as they open their hearts and minds to the Truth, they will come out of it, happily.
No compulsion, however, whatsoever, please.
Regards

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 14: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:43 pm
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
[Replying to post 13 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
I don't agree with one's reasoning, one need not agree with me on it though and may stick to it.


It doesn't matter.

The default position of atheist is not to have any belief in GODs. This is the same position of a new born human being.

As a position atheism has nothing to do with having choices based upon information. It is a position of ignorance.

This is why there are subsets to atheism. Because inevitably information makes itself know to the human being, and some of the information is theist based speculation and for those who choose to remain in a position of not knowing one way or the other, they are referred to as being agnostic atheists. They have no belief in GODs as well as they have not made their mind up one way or the other as to GODs existing.

Generally agnostics should be truly neutral within that position but often they are not and will lean towards supporting theism or supporting atheism, and the odd ones will swing confusingly between leaning toward either position on any given day of the week. Some will even use the position to proclaim leaning towards theism while showing the opposite in their expressions.

I generally treat those who claim to be agnostics but who demonstrate more leaning towards theism or atheism as people who are not entirely being honest with themselves and - depending on which way they lean in regard to how they express themselves, I will treat them as that, rather than refer to them as agnostic.

If they act like secularists, they more than likely actually are.

Simply put, agnostics don't have the licence to be either/or depending on their particular mood of the moment. It should always be regarded as a purely neutral position, in the same way that atheism is. If someone claims to be an agnostic but consistently expresses as (for example) an atheist materialist secularist, then they are not really agnostic, because they have shifted from a neutral position to one which is not.

Where atheism can be non neutral is within its subsets. One can lack belief in GODs (be atheist) and also hate theism/theists and proclaim that GODs do not exist. (be atheist but not neutral.)

Thus they can be called anti-theist atheists, and their position is no longer neutral.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 15: Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:33 pm
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
William wrote:

[Replying to post 13 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
I don't agree with one's reasoning, one need not agree with me on it though and may stick to it.


It doesn't matter.

The default position of atheist is not to have any belief in GODs. This is the same position of a new born human being.

As a position atheism has nothing to do with having choices based upon information. It is a position of ignorance.

This is why there are subsets to atheism. Because inevitably information makes itself know to the human being, and some of the information is theist based speculation and for those who choose to remain in a position of not knowing one way or the other, they are referred to as being agnostic atheists. They have no belief in GODs as well as they have not made their mind up one way or the other as to GODs existing.

Generally agnostics should be truly neutral within that position but often they are not and will lean towards supporting theism or supporting atheism, and the odd ones will swing confusingly between leaning toward either position on any given day of the week. Some will even use the position to proclaim leaning towards theism while showing the opposite in their expressions.

I generally treat those who claim to be agnostics but who demonstrate more leaning towards theism or atheism as people who are not entirely being honest with themselves and - depending on which way they lean in regard to how they express themselves, I will treat them as that, rather than refer to them as agnostic.

If they act like secularists, they more than likely actually are.

Simply put, agnostics don't have the licence to be either/or depending on their particular mood of the moment. It should always be regarded as a purely neutral position, in the same way that atheism is. If someone claims to be an agnostic but consistently expresses as (for example) an atheist materialist secularist, then they are not really agnostic, because they have shifted from a neutral position to one which is not.

Where atheism can be non neutral is within its subsets. One can lack belief in GODs (be atheist) and also hate theism/theists and proclaim that GODs do not exist. (be atheist but not neutral.)

Thus they can be called anti-theist atheists, and their position is no longer neutral.

Quote:
The default position of atheist is not to have any belief in GODs. This is the same position of a new born human being.

Is the position/no-position of Atheism people claiming it to be "default position"?:
1. just one's conjecture or
2. supported by a scripture of a revealed religion or
3. it is from Science, please.
If it is from (1) above, then it has little to no significance, one will agree, please.
If it is from (2) above, then please quote from the revealed scripture, one believes in.
If it is from (3) above then, please:
• quote from a text-book of science or
• quote from a peer-reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• Also please mention the discipline of science which has taken up this issue.
Right, please?

Regards

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 16: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:14 pm
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
[Replying to post 15 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
Is the position/no-position of Atheism people claiming it to be "default position"?:


Atheism is a position, not a 'no position'.
As a position, it is one of ignorance in that 'the default position of a new born is ignorance'. Not as in 'atheism is ignorance.'

The reasoning is that we are not born knowing that GOD does or doesn't exist. We are born ignorant of such things. Such things are not contemplated, and in that, it is a neutral position.

Thus atheism is a neutral position and the default position of every new born.

Quote:
1. just one's conjecture or...


It is not conjecture in relation to what is observed in the new born.

Quote:
2. supported by a scripture of a revealed religion or


This is irrelevant as argument. Scripture is a theist device, not an atheist device.

Theism does not have to support atheism but is - in my opinion - morally required to support truth.

The truth is all humans are born ignorant and thus have no beliefs in GODs.
Theism is what brings ideas of GODs into the knowledge-base of humanity. The ideas themselves vary, and are sometimes in opposition with one another.

Some scripture claims that we are born with the knowledge of GOD, but even if that is the truth, we are still ignorant of that knowledge as thought.
It may be instinctual, or intuitive knowledge which requires time and personal growth and maturity to begin to comprehend, and it is often twisted to suit organised religious dogma and doctrine. When that is the case, then the instinctual/intuitive knowledge becomes corrupted through that process.

Quote:
3. it is from Science, please.


I am happy to answer your questions but you also need to show me that you are willing to comprehend my answers. I have answered this question on numerous occasions. Science is not about supporting theism or atheism.

Quote:
If it is from (1) above, then it has little to no significance, one will agree, please.


As explained, it is not conjecture. Atheism is a neutral position based in ignorance as the default position of all new born humans. Essentially we are born Atheists, because we are born - at least consciously - lacking belief in any GODs. It is as simple as that. Not conjecture. Fact.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 17: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:03 pm
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
[Replying to post 16 by William]

Quote:
Paarsurrey wrote:
Is the position/no-position of Atheism people claiming it to be "default position"?:


Quote:
William wrote:
Atheism is a position, not a 'no position'.
As a position, it is one of ignorance in that 'the default position of a new born is ignorance'. Not as in 'atheism is ignorance.'

The reasoning is that we are not born knowing that GOD does or doesn't exist. We are born ignorant of such things. Such things are not contemplated, and in that, it is a neutral position.

Thus atheism is a neutral position and the default position of every new born

Quote:
Atheism is a position
As a position, it is one of ignorance

Thanks for agreeing, if I understood one correctly, that Atheism is the position of ignorance.

Though I don't agree that a child is ignorant. A child is endowed with the seed of knowledge and learning that flowers forth as the child grows year after year to adulthood and beyond.
So, why ascribe a child with "ignorance", please?
With due respect, I will like to state that it is perhaps the Atheism people who stick to ignorance all their lives?!
Please correct me if I am wrong. Right, please?

Regards

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 18: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:55 pm
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
[Replying to post 17 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
Thanks for agreeing, if I understood one correctly, that Atheism is the position of ignorance.


To clarify. Atheism is the overall heading of the group and there are subsets which are still understood to be positioned under that heading.

Atheism is lacking belief in any GODs. That is its default status, and in that, yes indeed, it is the position of ignorance.

Quote:
Though I don't agree that a child is ignorant.


A child is not ignorant. A new-born is ignorant.

Quote:
A child is endowed with the seed of knowledge and learning that flowers forth as the child grows year after year to adulthood and beyond.


A child is the product of whatever data of experience it is involved with. Often those in positions of authority over the child are injecting their perceptions into that child and this is where it gets its knowledge from.
Specifically and in general, children become much the same as that which had access to it and influence over it.

Quote:
So, why ascribe a child with "ignorance", please?


i didn't. You simply decided to take it that way. I ascribed a new born with ignorance.

Quote:
With due respect, I will like to state that it is perhaps the Atheism people who stick to ignorance all their lives?!


This is incorrect. Life itself forces knowledge onto the human being. We cannot ordinarily live out our lives in complete ignorance.

If you are alluding to atheism teaching children that GOD does not exist, and in that process this 'sticks ignorance into those lives', then you may have a point but people are individuals and have the autonomous privilege of choosing for themselves how they will think in relation to that question.

On the other hand, theists also can be said to be guilty of sticking ignorance onto children when they teach them ideas of GOD which become problematic and historically can be linked to extremely unpleasant and evil expressions.

So one is best not to play the kettle calling the pot black.

Even that such is the case that theists are guilty of being ignorant and teaching from that position, again - people are individuals and have the autonomous privilege of choosing for themselves how they will think in relation to ideas of GOD presented to them as 'truth'.

Quote:
Please correct me if I am wrong.


Well I have given you what I think is correction. You have the autonomous privilege of choosing for yourself whether to accept the correction or reject it.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 19: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:57 am
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
[Replying to post 18 by William]


Quote:
Paarsurrey:
Thanks for agreeing, if I understood one correctly, that Atheism is the position of ignorance.


Quote:
William wrote:
To clarify. Atheism is the overall heading of the group and there are subsets which are still understood to be positioned under that heading.

Atheism is lacking belief in any GODs. That is its default status, and in that, yes indeed, it is the position of ignorance.


Quote:
Atheism is the overall heading of the group and there are subsets


So, one further confirms that Atheism have sub-sets or denominations or sects. Right, please?

Regards

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 20: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:19 pm
Reply
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

Like this post
[Replying to post 19 by paarsurrey1]

There may be similarities but I don;t think it is necessary to equate subsets of theism or atheism as 'denominations'.

Denominations would be subsets of subsets of theism.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version