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

[smartcooky]

I really don't get this. We may never be able to give ourselves a good explanation for consciousness. I grant you that. Nevertheless, I think it is wrong to explain a mystery with another mystery.

Yep. Just becasue science cannot explain consciousness does not automatically mean that the god-squad can.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, it is true that everything that is proven was at one time unproven..

And throughout history, ALL those unproven things that were later proven, were proven by science or mathematics or logic, and by testing an retesting and experimentation and anlysis, and all without the help of, or the invocation of magic, invisible sky deities.

Not one unproven thing in the history of man has ever been proven because "goddidit"

 

[fuelair]

It's not about theism v materialism.

It's not about theism v science.

It's not about theism v atheism.

It's ONLY about theism v credibility.

And theism has no credibility. Just beliefs. Unprovable beliefs in giant quantities!!!

 

[ynot]

And theism has no credibility. Just beliefs. Unprovable beliefs in giant quantities!!!

Credibility is the last thing theism wants . . . . . .

In the wacky world of theism, where belief and faith in non-credible magic and miracles rule supreme, credibility has no credibility. Beyond that it’s all fingers in ears and “La, la, la, la”.

Not only does theism have no need or interest in being credible, being “INCREDIBLE!” (aka non-credible) is the very allure of theism that induces some people to choose to become theists.

No amount of credible argument/evidence will have any effect on theists unless and until they choose to give credibility back at least some credibility.

If you’re not confined by credibility you can have whatever you want – No death, eternal bliss, no pain or suffering, and you get to see all your dead (but not really dead) loved ones again. Who wouldn’t want all that for the mere cost of abandoning all credibility?

 

[I Am The Scum]

To make this on-topic, I would say my rejection of strong-atheism is predominately due to science's failure to explain something as simple as the causal mechanism for conscious experience. Perhaps a model of reality that is more metaphysical is called for.

This is getting absurd. Show me where you disagree with the following:

1. For any given philosophy, if it does not explain a causal mechanism for conscious experience, then it can be reasonably rejected.
2. Theism does not explain a causal mechanism for conscious experience.
3. Therefore, theism can be reasonably rejected.

1, 2, or 3? Which one is false? Choose carefully.

 

[acbytesla]

And throughout history, ALL those unproven things that were later proven, were proven by science or mathematics or logic, and by testing an retesting and experimentation and anlysis, and all without the help of, or the invocation of magic, invisible sky deities.

Not one unproven thing in the history of man has ever been proven because "goddidit"

And yet, still for many people, this is their go to answer. Makes you wonder why they bother.

 

[Minoosh]

I never experienced a theism fail, except for the one glitch: If you picked the wrong religion you were going to burn in Hell forever. I didn't think God would do that to ancient people born before Jesus, or people who grew up in China and had never even heard of Jesus, and I never found a satisfactory answer.

 

[ynot]

I never experienced a theism fail, except for the one glitch: If you picked the wrong religion you were going to burn in Hell forever.

Given the number of possible religions to choose from chances are you have the wrong one. This means you ARE going to burn in Hell forever. And you're happy to diminish that horrific consequence to a mere a “glitch”?

I didn't think God would do that to ancient people born before Jesus, or people who grew up in China and had never even heard of Jesus, and I never found a satisfactory answer.

“God works in mysterious ways” seems to allow theists to hand-wave all this way.

 

[stevea]

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 think this is an important distinction. TBD-

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.

'Critical thought' and science are distinct, but I doubt that many adherent's of either "get it". Critical thought is reason & logic, but science is an adherence to a (particularly effective and pragmatic) 'religion'. The fact that 'Ocham's Razor', repeated tests for accuracy , rejection of theories that fail to cohere to all facts - is a decent heuristic to construct a pragmatic MODEL of reality isn't "proof" of anything. It happens to work well in a lot of cases - there is no evidence the model of reality is anything like 'reality' except for observational coherence n the past.

*Common* theistic religions have anthropomorphic gods (even those gods who care especially abt humans) and this suggests (doesn't prove) they are a product of human emotional projections. We can give a 99.94% doubt to any religion's gods' that even are even exceptionally aware of humanity (which is NOT the same as entire dismissal-ism).

For these and for more ethereal, abstract & uncaring 'gods' - the lack of evidence is the primary point of 'fail'. Did "The Force" create the universe as we know it"? We simple NEVER accept such theories, nor that fairies inhabit the local caves & ponds, w/o significant evidence of existence. That isn't "science", tho' it is a theory of evidence based thinking - empiricism - and restriction of extraneous suppositions - that shares a common basis. We can't PROVE that our senses are accurate or reliable (see Hume) so we have limited reason to believe what we can see and no/zero basis to believe that which lacks all sensory evidence.

It's reasonable to consider things for which empirical evidence exists, but not to consider all the myriad things for which zero evidence exists (tho' these *might* exist).

In the wacky world of theism, where belief and faith in non-credible magic and miracles rule supreme, credibility has no credibility. Beyond that it’s all fingers in ears and “La, la, la, la”.

LOL - excellent description.

Not only does theism have no need or interest in being credible, being “INCREDIBLE!” (aka non-credible) is the very allure of theism that induces some people to choose to become theists.

No amount of credible argument/evidence will have any effect on theists unless and until they choose to give credibility back at least some credibility.

And there is the rub" dear 'ynot'. We live on a planet filled to the 7bln with illogical primates. I've been trying to adopt/adapt classical stoicism' to the task of dealing with this, but it leaves one with a rather cynical view of the less virtuous.(in the older sense of the term - virtue).

 

[Senex]

Do dinosaurs go to heaven?

This logical oddity hit me. If you believe in both evolution and heaven you must either believe all living things have an opportunity to enter heaven or god picked an arbitrary moment in human evolution to bless/curse humans with the ability to have afterlife in heaven or hell.

What about my golden retrievers?

 

[Thor 2]

This logical oddity hit me. If you believe in both evolution and heaven you must either believe all living things have an opportunity to enter heaven or god picked an arbitrary moment in human evolution to bless/curse humans with the ability to have afterlife in heaven or hell.

What about my golden retrievers?

They are a shoe in. The quote Ami Perdue:

Out of the Earth we come, and back go we,
As does the Turnip; so it seems to me
The Pumkin as our distant relative
Has equal claim to Immortality.

 

[Thor 2]

I think this is an important distinction. TBD-



'Critical thought' and science are distinct, but I doubt that many adherent's of either "get it". Critical thought is reason & logic, but science is an adherence to a (particularly effective and pragmatic) 'religion'.
.......

To call science a "religion" is nonsense.

 

[Senex]

They are a shoe in. The quote Ami Perdue:

Out of the Earth we come, and back go we,
As does the Turnip; so it seems to me
The Pumkin as our distant relative
Has equal claim to Immortality.

Does immortality mean having some physical residue when the universe is cold and dead?

 

[Agatha]

This thread seems to have strayed from the original topic; I am therefore going to close it temporarily so that I or another mod can do a clean-up.

It will be reopened in the fullness of time - until it is, please do not attempt to continue the discussion elsewhere. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Agatha]

I have reopened the thread, and the derail into the model(s) of consciousness has been split to another thread. When splitting threads, it is often the case (given that our weapon is more of a machete than a scalpel) that some posts which should have been moved were not, and/or some posts were moved which should not have been. Please report any such posts so that they can be dealt with.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[fuelair]

To call science a "religion" is nonsense.

As would be calling religion scientific!!!!!

 

[ynot]

As would be calling religion scientific!!!!!

Very true.

The split thread is just about longer than this one.

Had to open 15 Moved Post PM's.

 

[smartcooky]

Very true.

The split thread is just about longer than this one.

Had to open 15 Moved Post PM's.

I wouldn't have bothered. Just checkbox "Messages 15" at the head of the list, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and delete them.

 

[ynot]

I wouldn't have bothered. Just checkbox "Messages 15" at the head of the list, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and delete them.

DOH! . . . Thanks for the obvious.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I don't quite know what came first, because I've always liked science and always found bible stuff insanely boring. Norse mythology was way cooler, but I never believed in it. I grew up in a household where religion was never discussed or an issue. By the time I was asked these questions, I felt no need, nor found any compelling reason to embrace religion. Today I feel like believing in a creator, is like trying to understand the Big Bang without knowing any physical laws.