Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

[The Big Dog]

No, your post is ridiculous. Love, hope, beauty, empathy, good taste etc are descriptive words for feelings or ideas. They aren't really an existential claim. Comparing that to a God claim is comparing apples to oranges.

In contrast, you claim that the Bible is the word of God and that we should follow it. For me, the mere assertion that there is a God and the bible is God's word is not enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and yet none has ever been provided.

.

anyone else get whiplash from that change of subject??

My post expertly showed that many things most of us directly experience every day are not subject to "scientific" "verification," despite being so claimed in this thread.

Rather than getting an attempt at a response, we get cherry picking.

 

[SOdhner]

anyone else get whiplash from that change of subject??

Nope, seemed like a reasonable response to me.

My post expertly showed that many things most of us directly experience every day are not subject to "scientific" "verification," despite being so claimed in this thread.

Expertly? Really? Look, you're not differentiating between feelings, opinions, and facts. Facts are the ones that we apply science to (if we care to be critical, which we sometimes don't because it's not worth the effort).

"God exists" counts as a statement of fact. "I love my kids" is more of an opinion or feeling. They aren't the same kind of thing and can't be examined in the same way.

 

[Belz...]

Theism fail, at first.

 

[ahhell]

Theism fail, the Judeo-Christian god is obviously nonsensical, I figured that out by Junior High. I wasn't a skeptic for another 25 years.

 

[Parsman]

Also TBD, all those things you mention are outcomes of or expressions of human consciousness. Science is making good inroads into understanding human consciousness so yes, science can and will be able to explain more about your supposedly unexplainable things. The gaps for god to squeeze into get smaller every day.

 

[The Big Dog]

What beliefs, and why are these particular beliefs exempt from the usual requirement for evidence or verification?

Nope, seemed like a reasonable response to me.

Expertly? Really? Look, you're not differentiating between feelings, opinions, and facts. Facts are the ones that we apply science to (if we care to be critical, which we sometimes don't because it's not worth the effort).

"God exists" counts as a statement of fact. "I love my kids" is more of an opinion or feeling. They aren't the same kind of thing and can't be examined in the same way.

What is fascinating is that most people are agreeing with me, i.e. there are plenty of "beliefs" that are not subject to the "usual" "requirement" for "evidence or verification."

Beauty exists, love exists, those are "facts." What I find doubly fascinating is that so few people in this thread wish to address the blatant false dichotomy in the headline and op.

Seems like a critical thinking "fail" as it were.

 

[Dancing David]

Theists often defend their god beliefs by attacking science with silly comments like - “Science doesn’t know everything, Science isn’t always right, Science can’t explain love”, etc. My response is usually - “So what? I’m an atheist mainly because theism has failed to convince me any god exists. Take away science and I would still be an atheist. Don’t blame science for the failure of theism”.

As I’ve never had a god belief (or any paranormal belief) I’m wondering if others are atheists predominately because of the success of science or the failure of theism.

I am an atheist pagan buddhist, because I have been taking Zoloft for an extended period.
The feelings and thoughts of connection and magical thinking are gone now.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

What is fascinating is that most people are agreeing with me, i.e. there are plenty of "beliefs" that are not subject to the "usual" "requirement" for "evidence or verification."

Beauty exists, love exists, those are "facts." What I find doubly fascinating is that so few people in this thread wish to address the blatant false dichotomy in the headline and op.

Seems like a critical thinking "fail" as it were.

What they are saying, and what you are ignoring (and will keep ignoring), is that beauty and love are subjective experiences.

The existence of a God with very particular rules for human civilisation that he had people write down in a book, is a statement of fact.

Compare "I like strawberry jam" with "Strawberry Jam is the creator of the Universe". One requires more evidence than the other.

 

[The Big Dog]

What they are saying, and what you are ignoring, is that beauty and love are subjective experiences.

The existence of a God with very particular rules for human civilisation that he had people write down in a book, is a statement of fact.

so you are saying that they are NOT "beliefs" that are subject to "the usual requirement for evidence or verification?"

It is fine.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

so* you are saying that they are NOT "beliefs" that are subject to "the usual requirement for evidence or verification?"

It is fine.

If you want to equivocate between the different meanings of 'belief' and claim that describing one's own state of mind and making metaphysical claims about how the world operates are the same, then sure...

*I believe a certain poster here once coined a rule that said when a post starts with 'so', it's a strawman... If I could only remember who...

 

[The Big Dog]

If you want to equivocate between the different meanings of 'belief' and claim that describing one's own state of mind and making metaphysical claims about how the world operates are the same, then sure...

*I believe a certain poster here once coined a rule that said when a post starts with 'so', it's a strawman... If I could only remember who...

who is "equivocating"? CERTAINLY not me. I am taking the claim made, i.e., that beliefs are subject to the "usual requirement for evidence or verification" head on and destroying it and salting the earth from which it sprang, much as I have done so with the false dichotomy in the opening post by demonstrating that religious faith and science are not incompatable.

* I think it was Lash L.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

much as I have done so with the false dichotomy in the opening post by demonstrating that religious faith and science are not incompatable.

There is no such false dichotomy in the OP. I'll quote it in full...

Theists often defend their god beliefs by attacking science with silly comments like - “Science doesn’t know everything, Science isn’t always right, Science can’t explain love”, etc. My response is usually - “So what? I’m an atheist mainly because theism has failed to convince me any god exists. Take away science and I would still be an atheist. Don’t blame science for the failure of theism”.

As I’ve never had a god belief (or any paranormal belief) I’m wondering if others are atheists predominately because of the success of science or the failure of theism.

OP doesn't claim that science and faith are incompatible.
In fact, OP states that the merits of science are not related to the merits of faith, and that both should be able to stand on their own.

 

[The Big Dog]

There is no such false dichotomy in the OP. I'll quote it in full...

OP doesn't claim that science and faith are incompatible.
In fact, OP states that the merits of science are not related to the merits of faith, and that both should be able to stand on their own.

Oy vey:

"Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Oy vey:

"Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

Yes... If you are an atheist, is that because science convinced you there is no God, or because religion failed to convince you there is one (OP leaning towards the latter, and only including the former option because in his experience theists attack science when they discover he isn't a believer)?...

Nowhere does OP claim that these are the only two choices.
And more importantly: neither of these options implies that science and faith are incompatible. There is no false dichotomy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes... If you are an atheist, is that because science convinced you there is no God, or because religion failed to convince you there is one (OP leaning towards the latter, and only including the former option because in his experience theists attack science when they discover he isn't a believer)?...

Nowhere does OP claim that these are the only two choices.
And more importantly: neither of these options implies that science and faith are incompatible. There is no false dichotomy.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

Yes, as it is phrased in the OP, it's a dichotomy.
What you have either failed or declined to do is demonstrate how this is the false dilemma fallacy.

ETA: OP is as much a false dichotomy as the question 'do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream?'

 

[rwguinn]

Read "Stranger in a.Strange Land" at age 12. Made more.sense than the contradictions in the Bible, which eventually failed the logic and consistency test..

 

[fuelair]

Of course theism and science are not incompatible. Heck, most of history’s greatest scientists had strong faith.

As such it seems pretty clear that atheism is the fail one.

During much of those times they would have been killed in many ways involving massive pain had they not claimed to believe in that batch of cretinism!!!

 

[fuelair]

Read "Stranger in a.Strange Land" at age 12. Made more.sense than the contradictions in the Bible, which eventually failed the logic and consistency test..

Good book that!!!!

 

[The Big Dog]

During much of those times they would have been killed in many ways involving massive pain had they not claimed to believe in that batch of cretinism!!!

While one does enjoy a surfeit of exclamation points, I notice that this claim appears to be made up of whole cloth.

You don't really think that Newton secretly did not believe in God but could only transmit that knowledge to us in this day and age by wishful thinking?