• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

ynot

Philosopher
ynot
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
9,280
Location
Present
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.
 
You can't have one without the other. Or put another way, theism fails if you think critically, and, if you think critically, theism fails.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You can't have one without the other. Or put another way, theism fails if you think critically, and, if you think critically, theism fails.
Click to expand...
Rejecting the claims of theism requires such a low level of critical thinking I don't think I would call it "science". I rejected theism at a very young age.
 
I was never a real believer, merely a shrugging "I guess God's out there somewhere" kid until high school. Then I took a course in classical mythology where I learned that the cool stories I'd read (and movies seen) about ancient gods and heroes were actually religion -- those cultures worshipped those gods exactly the way modern people worship their gods. Ergo, modern religion was mythology.

That was my first step toward atheism. Science had nothing at all to do with it.
 
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.
 
I can remember at a primary school assembly when we were all supposed to be praying to God, thinking to myself "its just pretend". Maybe it was after I changed my mind about Santa. Not sure. But that was the end of any vague religiosity for me. God was filed with fairies, ghosts and dragons. I think this pre-dated my fascination with how cool science was at explaining the world. There was never a conflict between the two for me. One was awesome and the other was just make-believe.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Neither. Or both. I've always been convinced by evidence, and never by fairy tales.

Dave
Click to expand...
fishbob said:
Neither.
Read the bible when I was a kid. What a pant-load to take seriously.
Click to expand...
The fairy tales of the Bible are one version of theism attempting to get you both to become theists. Given that attempt has failed in both your cases I would say that is a failure of theism.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Of course theism and science are not incompatible. Heck, most of history’s greatest scientists had strong faith.
Click to expand...
Science is a method. Scientists aren’t science. Some scientists aren’t very good at applying the scientific method to all things (especially their non-scientific religious beliefs).

That theism and some (religious) scientists aren't incompatible doesn't mean theism and science are compatible.

The Big Dog said:
As such it seems pretty clear that atheism is the fail one.
Click to expand...
I guess when you don’t have anything intelligent to say “silly” is the best you can offer.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Science is a method. Scientists aren’t science. Some scientists aren’t very good at applying the scientific method to all things (especially their non-scientific religious beliefs).

I guess when you don’t have anything intelligent to say “silly” is the best you can offer.
Click to expand...

Well you set up a false dichotomy where one of the options was patently silly, and the other was a loaded pejorative, so it ain’t as if this thread could possibly get more silly from there, am I right?
 
Perhaps equal portions of both. By about age 40, theism had as much credibility to me as (e.g.) Heaven's Gate cult.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well you set up a false dichotomy where one of the options was patently silly,
Click to expand...
Which one?
The Big Dog said:
and the other was a loaded pejorative,
Click to expand...
Which one?
The Big Dog said:
so it ain’t as if this thread could possibly get more silly from there, am I right?
Click to expand...
I don't think you're right, but I'm sure there are others that might think you are. Further discussion with intelligent contributions might help us all to get at the truth.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Which one?

Which one?

I don't think you're right, but I'm sure there are others that might think you are. Further discussion with intelligent contributions might help us all to get at the truth.
Click to expand...

Definition of pejorative. : a word or phrase that has negative connotations (see connotation 1) or that is intended to disparage or belittle
 
LSSBB said:
I think the very fact that the scientists were able to function as scientists while holding religious beliefs is the very proof they are compatible. Did they fail at science while holding those beliefs?
Click to expand...
They failed at science in not correctly applying the scientific method to their beliefs. In other words they separated their beliefs from science. That hardly makes their beliefs and science compatible.
 
ynot said:
They failed at science in not correctly applying the scientific method to their beliefs. In other words they separated their beliefs from science. That hardly makes their beliefs and science compatible.
Click to expand...

well there are lots and lots of "beliefs" that are not subject to the scientific method, of course.

Heck, you mention one of them in your OP!
 
The Big Dog said:
Definition of pejorative. : a word or phrase that has negative connotations (see connotation 1) or that is intended to disparage or belittle
Click to expand...
I ask two questions and get the meaning of a word that I knew anyway!???

A blatant example of a subterfuge of obfuscation.

Theism has obviously failed to convince those that have rejected theism. Nothing pejorative about that (merely a fact).

Science has obviously succeeded in convincing those that have accepted science. Nothing pejorative about that (merely a fact).

Can’t spot any false dichotomy either. As I said . . .
ynot said:
I guess when you don’t have anything intelligent to say “silly” is the best you can offer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom