Is Atheism Scientfic?

[Richard Aberdeen]

At the bottom line, atheism would have us believe that the grand design cosmic reality magically appeared and, out popped magical living beings of intelligence and conscious awareness. Atheism assumes without evidence, that there is no Creator; no design, no thought, no reason and no rhyme behind the material reality.

The problem with such a non-evidence based, non-scientific position is, there is zero evidence within human history and experience, that anything has ever "self-designed", "self-arranged", "self-assembled" or came into existence by "natural, unguided processes". Nor are any of the other boneheaded nonsensical terms invented out of extremely thin air by atheistic scientists, based on a single shred of evidence.

A prominent atheist today stated that within the universe there exists "nothing but blind pitiless indifference." This is easily proven false by the fact that we humans have a conscience and ideas of human rights, right and wrong, good and evil. Such an ignorant statement is disproven by the very existence of a concept of love verses hate. We humans and many animals often go to great lengths to help our fellow living beings, even risking life and limb and all hope of reproduction.

While science is at least theoretically based on the most likely conclusion, given the current evidence, it is fair to state that atheism is the least likely of all conclusions. Atheism is less credible than all of the myths, fairy tales and totality of fiction compiled within the history of human civilization.

Isaac Newton's first law of motion states that a body comprised of matter will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Nevertheless, atheism would have us believe that a universal reality observed to be in motion, somehow magically exists without any Primary Cause, as if motion can exist unto itself. This in spite of such a conclusion violating every experiment known to science.

Consider the following list that atheism cannot explain: Light, motion, life, intelligence, conscious awareness, universal existence, our own existence, the overwhelming complexity of living cells, DNA and the existence of DNA information, the existence of universal laws (if there are such a thing) and the existence of mathematics, to list but a few. What good is atheism then? Has atheism ever changed a single moral or other hair on our heads? Has it ever satisfactorily explained anything at all?

Atheism seldom if ever pauses to consider that terms carelessly used today like "nature", "natural processes" and "natural world", are merely human inventions intended to replace what people for thousands of years called "creation". Who decided that "creation" is less scientific than "nature: and why and, what evidence do they have?

Life by definition is made up of one or more living cells. And living cells cannot at all function without precise RNA and/or, DNA information. Literally hundreds of scientific experiments all demonstrate the same conclusion, that information cannot exist apart from intelligence and, life cannot exist apart from precise functional information.

No computer or other code or even a single short human language sentence has ever been demonstrated to "self-design" or "self-arrange" into existence. Experiments in fact, clearly show the opposite conclusion: No kind or any type of language or code will ever design or arrange itself, given even an infinite amount of time. Notwithstanding, the language of DNA is far more complex than any code ever devised by human beings.

It is known today that living cells are essentially infinitely more complex than Darwin or Huxley or Bertrand Russel ever dreamed of. If even the simplest known cell were blown up to the size of a large factory, it would be overwhelmingly more complex and fantastically designed than any factory of machines we humans have ever imagined and constructed.

Cells are so complex that scientists after many decades of cellular research, are still trying to understand a living cell's inner-workings. Abiogenesis and chemical evolution is a complete myth. The chemicals necessary for life would degrade within a month or less, whether located in a pond, in the ocean depths or anywhere else.

Consider that human science today, according to many scientists themselves (in agreement with Paul), knows very little about almost everything compared to what there is yet to learn. Science can only theorize what may exist outside of our three-dimensional plus time ability to detect.

What science calls "mind" or "soul", independent and working outside of just our brain, remains poorly understood at best. It is known today that the heart dictates feelings to the brain and not the other way around, as well as our conscious awareness is inter-dependent on most if not all of our body's organs.

It represents utter foolishness that modern science chooses to call stars, planets and moons after names found in astrology and mythology, while excluding any mention of or discussion of God and creation. As if the gross superstition of magically appearing universes posing as materialistic 'science', can somehow explain our existence or much of anything.

Our universities of purported "higher learning" treat "science" today as if a group of credentialed experts got together and studiously examined every tiny piece of each and every part of an electric automobile. And then concluded that no one designed the car and worse, forbid any mention of who paved the road or created the larger reality the vehicle travels within.

Consider if an architect approached his or her job in such fashion. Would they still have a job or could we be confident that the building they claimed no one designed would withstand a significant earthquake? Yet, this is what students are assured is agreed upon science, in spite of the fact literally thousands of actual practicing scientists, including many biologists, no longer agree with Neo-Darwinism and, 40% of scientists on a global level claim to believe in God.

A human artist painting a large mural will often go to considerable effort to display the smallest detail in the individual expressions of each of many children. And this is what we find everywhere we look, from the great "universal backbone", where clusters of galaxies are woven like giant filaments of light, separated by dark voids in a great lattice-like design. And then on down to the microscopic and barely understood quantum level of existence, we find the Master Designer and Creator engaged with every aspect of both the largest and tiniest detail of cosmic existence.

What is rarely if ever addressed by atheists themselves, is that atheism doesn't have any value. It offers no solution for the greed, hatred, war, other violence, mass pollution, hunger, sorrow, pain and suffering or anything else that plagues humanity. Atheism is non-evidence based, non-scientific and offers no reason or rhyme and no hope for a wayward race called "human being".

The pride and utter foolhardiness of atheism rarely pauses to consider that the universe is very large and, we are very, very, very small in comparison; as if a lepton on a gnat's ass could somehow know there is no God. As a long ago Psalmist predicted, it is no small wonder that "he who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord will hold them in derision Psalm 2:4."

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Richard Aberdeen in post #1]
Although I'm not an atheist, I found your post "interesting" in how it seems to assume that science = atheism, thereby conceding science to atheism. Doesn't that mean atheism therefore gets the credit for every scientific advancement and discovery?

Also, if you think scientists currently aren't doing science the right way and that you know how to do it better, then what's stopping you from going out and doing your own, allegedly superior, type of science and showing the world how it gets better results?

As the saying goes....talk is cheap. If you think you have a better way, let's see it. "Put up or shut up" as it were.

[blackstart]

[Replying to Richard Aberdeen in post #1]

Richard,

I would suggest that science has dealt many body blows especially to organised religions, mainly through its emphasis on looking at the natural world and proceeding on the basis of gathering as much evidence as possible, on its emphasis on experimentation and on its efforts to achieve as much objectivity as possible leading to its willingness to reject or alter its findings in line with any new salient information. Because of this the findings of science always remain provisional, which is one of its strengths.

It seems that belief in a god requires faith above all. In my case, for instance, I have no reason to believe in any god. That is not to say that a god(s) exists or might have existed, but I find no evidence of such. So I simply ask myself why should I believe in something for which I see no evidence and which explains nothing of substance about the natural world around me. Hence, whether science is involved or not, religion and faith, on this personal level, have no significance for me.

Atheism does not have to explain everything about the natural world. I really don't know how the universe was created or even if it has been in existence forever. What I do know is that simply to say a god created it holds no explanatory value. It is simply an assertion, and therefore one that I find highly unsatisfactory.

As long as a faith position does no harm(an idea which might be debatable, of course) then I have no problem with it at all. Indeed, for that person it might very well be a helpful position, but throughout my life I have found that religious faith to be of little significance for me. Hence I remain an atheist.

[Richard Aberdeen]

Moderator Intervention

Post removed due to repeated rules violation.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Richard Aberdeen in post #4]
There is no such thing as "atheistic science". There is just science. Dawkins and DeGrasse Tyson do the exact same science as all other scientists, namely they all operate via the scientific method.

Dawkins definitely advocates for atheism in his private life, but that has nothing to do with any actual science he conducts. It's no different than Dr. Francis Collins, who advocates for Christianity in his private life, but still does his professional science in the same way as Dawkins and all other scientists.

Try and learn how to separate a scientist's personal views from their professional work.

[Tcg]

as if a lepton on a gnat's ass...

Moderator Warning



Repeated use of profanity after multiple notifications that doing so violates our rules.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Richard Aberdeen in post #1]

Atheism is merely the lack of belief in the unfalsifiable claim that a god exists and does not insist upon the positive belief that no god exists. Furthermore, Atheism does not claim to be scientific and makes no other claims of its own. However, some people who identify with the "Atheist" label may claim to personally believe no god exists while other Atheists may claim to be agnostic on the matter. In effect, Atheism functions as nothing more than a single response to a single unfalsifiable claim and shouldn't be conflated with the variety of scientific and non-scientific claims that some individual Atheists may choose to defend.

Meanwhile, Science functions as a demonstrably reliable method for investigating all types of falsifiable claims, but many science communicators do not always reliably describe the results of the scientific process. They often use colloquial and imprecise language when presenting the results of scientific research to the general public, and this common practice has unintentionally led to a widespread misunderstanding about how science is supposed to work. For example, the word "prove" is frequently invoked by many science communicators when discussing the supporting evidence for a falsifiable hypothesis, but the scientific method does not intend to prove any claim as absolutely true. In reality, the scientific method compels scientists to first look for the evidence they would expect to find if their proposed hypothesis is false. In this way, the possibility of confirmation bias is appropriately mitigated. Only after surviving rigorous and repeated tests is a falsifiable hypothesis determined to be acceptable as the most reasonable explanation by the scientific community until such a time (if ever) that the disconfirming evidence is demonstrated to exist. Therefore, the tentative acceptance of falsifiable and scientifically tested hypothesis is necessarily better justified than any dogmatically held belief in an unfalsifiable claim.

Accordingly, are you able to describe a reliable method we can use to determine if the proposed claim about the existence of a god is false, or will you concede the hypothesis it is unfalsifiable?