Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Closed minded

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Closed minded

    I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?)
    Atheists can't describe the God they "looked for"

    But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/


    So when atheeeism is used to poison science, notice declarations not backed with tessed proof.

    climate alarmism,
    abortionism
    Darwinism

    Atheeeists have fear of independent thinking.


  • #2
    Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

    Atheists can't describe the God they "looked for"




    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/


    So when atheeeism is used to poison science, notice declarations not backed with tessed proof.

    climate alarmism,
    abortionism
    Darwinism

    Atheeeists have fear of independent thinking.
    So you've discovered another person who doesn't understand atheism. Congratulations.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

      Atheists can't describe the God they "looked for"




      https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/


      So when atheeeism is used to poison science, notice declarations not backed with tessed proof.

      climate alarmism,
      abortionism
      Darwinism

      Atheeeists have fear of independent thinking.
      Most "Atheists" ARE just garden variety "Agnostics" anyway. AND, of course, you can't PROVE a negative anyway.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tyrrho View Post

        So you've discovered another person who doesn't understand atheism. Congratulations.
        n>Are you another one who does not understand atheism?
        .
        Mouser Larry Roy: "yippee ki yay"
        “... see the loonies in their cages… are they not witty… how much amusement they afford… ours is a human world, theirs is a bestial world… " Bedlam

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by noemail001 View Post

          n>Are you another one who does not understand atheism?
          .
          No, but I'm afraid you are.

          Comment


          • #6
            noemail001 View Post
            n>Are you another one who does not understand atheism?

            Originally posted by Tyrrho View Post

            No, ...
            n>No? Looks like you are claiming you understand atheism. Is it your secret, or would you care to share your understanding or maybe link everyone to your explanation?

            noemail001 View Post
            n>Are you another one who does not understand atheism?

            Originally posted by Tyrrho View Post

            ... you are.
            n>Big claim. Link everyone to what I have posted that gives you that impression.

            .
            Mouser Larry Roy: "yippee ki yay"
            “... see the loonies in their cages… are they not witty… how much amusement they afford… ours is a human world, theirs is a bestial world… " Bedlam

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

              Atheists can't describe the God they "looked for"




              https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/


              So when atheeeism is used to poison science, notice declarations not backed with tessed proof.

              climate alarmism,
              abortionism
              Darwinism

              Atheeeists have fear of independent thinking.
              n>Nice link. Thanks.
              Mouser Larry Roy: "yippee ki yay"
              “... see the loonies in their cages… are they not witty… how much amusement they afford… ours is a human world, theirs is a bestial world… " Bedlam

              Comment


              • #8
                Nouveau> ...
                https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/ ...

                Originally posted by Tyrrho View Post

                So you've discovered another person who doesn't understand atheism. Congratulations.
                n>Gleiser doesn't understand atheism? What did he get wrong? Or is that a secret? Are you a gnostic atheist? Or like those ambushing posters who take pot shots and then run away?
                .
                Mouser Larry Roy: "yippee ki yay"
                “... see the loonies in their cages… are they not witty… how much amusement they afford… ours is a human world, theirs is a bestial world… " Bedlam

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah. I mean, clearly, denying the existence of a disembodied omnipotent consciousness that routinely violates the laws of physics is contrary to science.

                  Also, this guy is getting paid big bucks by Templeton to say this stuff.
                  "There is no singular thing in nature that is more useful to man than a man who lives according to the guidance of reason."
                  ~ Spinoza, Ethics, 4p35c1

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by noemail001 View Post
                    Nouveau> ...
                    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/ ...



                    n>Gleiser doesn't understand atheism? What did he get wrong? Or is that a secret? Are you a gnostic atheist? Or like those ambushing posters who take pot shots and then run away?
                    .
                    When he says, "But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about," he implies that an atheist must be making a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about. This is false.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tyrrho View Post

                      When he says, "But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about," he implies that an atheist must be making a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about. This is false.
                      He implies that an atheist can't be agnostic.
                      Dillahunty said it - that settles it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MarkUK View Post

                        He implies that an atheist can't be agnostic.
                        Right, or as I said, he doesn't understand atheism.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tyrrho View Post

                          When he says, "But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about," he implies that an atheist must be making a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about. This is false.
                          n>(my highlight of your malarkey above to contrast with Gleiser's explicit statement below) One thing I like about other places is that some of those atheists know how to read and are humble and honest... kinda like what Gleiser said. The opposite is what I usually see exemplified amongst CARM atheists. Let's take you for example. You quote, "But on the other hand..." etc. To atheists elsewhere some may know enough about reading to see that as explicit contrast... warning the smart and humble and honest reader to not overlook the previous statements. You chopped the previous statements out and authorized yourself to speak for Gleiser, taking it upon yourself to announce what Gleiser implied... what he really meant... what he really intended. Other atheists would know better, maybe. Not you. Without stating (though I asked you in my #6 post above) what you say about real atheism ... what you understand that Gleiser does not... as you accuse Gleiser. Here is that paragraph in full... showing your false claim about what Gleiser "he implied" (my highlight you maybe "forgot" to read?):
                          "I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the "New Atheist"guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on. And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality."

                          n>Again. You maybe think you understand atheism. You claimed at least twice that Gleiser does not. I ask you again: "Looks like you are claiming you understand atheism. Is it your secret, or would you care to share your understanding or maybe link everyone to your explanation?" I'm thrilled that we have amongst us an authority much greater than Gleiser. Wow. Such an honor.
                          .
                          Mouser Larry Roy: "yippee ki yay"
                          “... see the loonies in their cages… are they not witty… how much amusement they afford… ours is a human world, theirs is a bestial world… " Bedlam

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            n>Are you another one who does not understand atheism?

                            Originally posted by Tyrrho View Post

                            No, but I'm afraid you are.
                            n>Link everyone to what I don't understand about atheism. Thanks. Showtime. Don't be afraid.

                            .
                            Mouser Larry Roy: "yippee ki yay"
                            “... see the loonies in their cages… are they not witty… how much amusement they afford… ours is a human world, theirs is a bestial world… " Bedlam

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by noemail001 View Post

                              n>(my highlight of your malarkey above to contrast with Gleiser's explicit statement below) One thing I like about other places is that some of those atheists know how to read and are humble and honest... kinda like what Gleiser said. The opposite is what I usually see exemplified amongst CARM atheists. Let's take you for example. You quote, "But on the other hand..." etc. To atheists elsewhere some may know enough about reading to see that as explicit contrast... warning the smart and humble and honest reader to not overlook the previous statements. You chopped the previous statements out and authorized yourself to speak for Gleiser, taking it upon yourself to announce what Gleiser implied... what he really meant... what he really intended. Other atheists would know better, maybe. Not you. Without stating (though I asked you in my #6 post above) what you say about real atheism ... what you understand that Gleiser does not... as you accuse Gleiser. Here is that paragraph in full... showing your false claim about what Gleiser "he implied" (my highlight you maybe "forgot" to read?):
                              "I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the "New Atheist"guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on. And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality."

                              n>Again. You maybe think you understand atheism. You claimed at least twice that Gleiser does not. I ask you again: "Looks like you are claiming you understand atheism. Is it your secret, or would you care to share your understanding or maybe link everyone to your explanation?" I'm thrilled that we have amongst us an authority much greater than Gleiser. Wow. Such an honor.
                              .
                              In addition to not understanding atheism, the part you highlighted suggests that he doesn't understand science. He would presumably think that the statement, "I don't believe in unicorns" is inconsistent with the scientific method.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X