Science has been unfairly hijacked by atheism

[swansont]

I personally would have to say that it`s Neither, it`s just a Belief, that So far has demonstrated itself to be true more often than not.

 

interestingly enough, Belief Implies Faith also!

 

But how can something be neither theistic nor atheistic? Doesn't that cover the whole spectrum?

[YT2095]

I see your your point and realised I used the wrong Logical operator, a NAND rather than AND gate.

 

in which case I will update say that it is Both rather than neither.

 

err well spotted

[doG]

It is our belief that the discipline of science has been hijacked by atheists and used to support atheistic beliefs.

 

It is our belief based on scientific method and empirical evidence; atheism cannot state that there is no God. It can only state “at this present time in human history we cannot prove with existing instruments of measurement and detection that there is or is not a God or a spiritual realm where he is suppose to exist.”

 

The burden is on those that claim the existence of anything. Do you just presume that Leprechauns exist because you can't prove that they don't. How about gnomes? Gremlins? Ghosts? Uniciorns? Thysrtlks? If you want to claim that any of these exist it is your burden to prove it, not everyone else's to prove they don't. There is zero evidence for any Gods. Until you can prove they exist the4n they don't!

[Phi for All]

Until you can prove they exist the4n they don't!

I don't expect proof of the supernatural. Many things used to be supernatural until our observations became sophisticated enough to realize they were natural all along.

 

Science tells me there are things that exist I can't observe, and dimensions I can't even imagine. I think the limit is with me and my senses.

 

I don't argue that a previously unobserved higher power exists, but I'm open to the possibility. Very skeptical, but open.

 

I learned that here at SFN, that scientific skepticism. That, and never, never, NEVER use absolutes.

[Royston]

If you try to hijack science, to do anything but further our understanding of nature, you stop doing science.

[deiscovery]

When listening to notable atheists speak, they turn to science to back their claims.

 

-like DoG's comments, but with much more meat on the bones... "There is zero evidence for any Gods. Until you can prove they exist the4n they don't!"

 

Can an atheist make their claims without using science? It comes off as a sort of partnership (atheism and science).

 

I think it is unfair and they should release the presumption that science backs their claims.

[doG]

When listening to notable atheists speak, they turn to science to back their claims.

 

-like DoG's comments, but with much more meat on the bones... "There is zero evidence for any Gods. Until you can prove they exist the4n they don't!"

 

Can an atheist make their claims without using science? It comes off as a sort of partnership (atheism and science).

 

I think it is unfair and they should release the presumption that science backs their claims.

 

I didn't turn to science to back my claim, I simply stated a simple fact. Until there is evidence of mythical beings then they don't exist. That doesn't exclude the possibility that they might but it is unreasonable and illogical for mankind to assume that anything man can dream up, exists by default. One does not need science or atheism to use reason.

 

FWIW, my own atheist position is a lack of belief in any Gods, not an affirmative belief that they can't exist. I am literally not-theist. If and when some theist can PROVE that a God does exist then I'll believe it. Until then quit worrying about what an atheist believes and get busy proving what you believe. You cannot prove your own POV by simply trying to discredit others.

[ydoaPs]

I think the knee jerk reaction is to come back at religion. I am trying not to include religion (Christian) in the statement. My belief is that Atheism

 

claims scientific arguments or the lack of them for there stance that there is no God.

 

I think they should leave science out of their arguments. We do not have any evidence, measurement or detection of "spiritual" entities or claimed

 

places (angels, Holy Spirit, the anointing, heaven, hell) at this current time in history to prove or disprove God. Atheism should just state that and

 

leave science out of it's arguments.

 

I would like to stay on topic if possible...

 

I would like to thank you for completely ignoring my post.

 

When listening to notable atheists speak, they turn to science to back their claims.

Examples? What claims?

 

-like DoG's comments, but with much more meat on the bones... "There is zero evidence for any Gods. Until you can prove they exist the4n they don't!"

That is simply how it works. The burden of proof is on the affirmative(the one making the claim). You are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

 

Can an atheist make their claims without using science?

What claims? Why is it wrong to use science to back up your position?

 

I think it is unfair and they should release the presumption that science backs their claims.

 

What claims? Which atheists? Does science go against the claims of these atheists?

[CDarwin]

When listening to notable atheists speak, they turn to science to back their claims.

 

-like DoG's comments, but with much more meat on the bones... "There is zero evidence for any Gods. Until you can prove they exist the4n they don't!"

 

Can an atheist make their claims without using science? It comes off as a sort of partnership (atheism and science).

 

I think it is unfair and they should release the presumption that science backs their claims.

 

doG was using an argument based on logical reasoning, not one based on science. Logic holds that the burden of proof in on the party making the positive claim, but that doesn't necessarily mean that from a scientific standpoint the positive claim can be said to be false without evidence as to the validity of that positive claim.

 

I know that's more-or-less already been said, but I'm just making it explicit because there seems to be some common confusion on that point.

[john5746]

It is our belief that the discipline of science has been hijacked by atheists and used to support atheistic beliefs.

 

Who is "our"?

 

It is my belief that some religious people try to use science to help them delude themselves about the existence of a god. If someone makes claims that fly in the face of science, they probably will get scientific arguments against those beliefs. If someone tries to make political arguments based on their religion, they will probably get a political argument against their position.

 

Religion used to encompass everything - science, agriculture, government, entertainment, war. I guess you could say that these things are being "hijacked", but I say they are being released from bondage. And I say, thank god for that freedom!

[Phi for All]

Why is it wrong to use science to back up your position?

If it's a position on a subject science is not equipped to measure, why would it be right?

[gcol]

Are there not scientific "laws" accepted by both theists and atheists? If so there is no conflict. Such laws stand above and independant of belief. It is a logical travesty for either side to invoke them in justification of their claims. Neither side owns them. For me, they are a truth above belief.

 

In a court of law, such arguments should be struck out as irrelevant to the case.

[Phi for All]

Are there not scientific "laws" accepted by both theists and atheists? If so there is no conflict.

Some perhaps, but not by all on either side, and no scientific "law" applies to a being which is, by definition and alleged choice, unobservable by scientific methods.

Such laws stand above and independant of belief. It is a logical travesty for either side to invoke them in justification of their claims. Neither side owns them.

I agree, it is illogical to apply science to a God who requires only faith in His existence and therefore refuses to be observed. It is also illogical to argue that an omnipotent higher power can change scientific "laws" at his whim. Pure science is a poor tool for measuring faith, and faith alone is equally ill-suited to treat with science.

[Reaper]

I agree, it is illogical to apply science to a God who requires only faith in His existence and therefore refuses to be observed.

 

 

Why though? In fact, why are you assuming that he refuses to be observed? There is a great deal of people (both in the bible and in modern times) who claim otherwise (e.g. revelations, visions, miracles, etc.)

 

 

There are some aspects that of religions that we can definitely test for and disprove/prove.

[falcon9393]

I think religion and science should be kept separate. everytime someone gets the bright idea that everyone should believe in their religion they invade everything and anything and relate it to god and in this case science sorta fights back so they call it "Atheism" and i dont think thats the case...: /

Evolution vs. creationism

[Phi for All]

Why though? In fact, why are you assuming that he refuses to be observed? There is a great deal of people (both in the bible and in modern times) who claim otherwise (e.g. revelations, visions, miracles, etc.)

First off, shame on you for using the bible as a scientific reference. Booooo! Since you opened the door though, I believe many religions declare, in their various texts, that their god has chosen not to reveal Himself until a chosen time, or that He has chosen an earthly entity through which He'll reveal His wishes, or encourages faith in His existence even though you'll never actually see Him in this lifetime.

 

Next, point me to those instances of revelations and miracles that let us scientifically observe God. Remember they must be testable and capable of making predictions.

There are some aspects that of religions that we can definitely test for and disprove/prove.

Which supernatural aspects have been proven scientifically? I keep waiting and I've gotten nothing.

 

 

 

 

The atheistic POV usually wants scientific proof. The religious POV often uses a deity's supernatural powers to change natural laws. Both PsOV are requiring something the other is incapable of giving.

 

There is no "proof" of God. Additionally, science can't measure a force that can change natural laws at will. Science shouldn't be used either for or against religion.

[Reaper]

First off, shame on you for using the bible as a scientific reference. Booooo!

 

Well, no, I did not do that at all. I was saying that people (prophets or otherwise) in the bible claim to have visions from, felt His presence, and even talk to God and whatever angels and demons there are. And, to this day there are many people who still claim to be able to communicate or feel the presence of supernatural deities of any kind.

 

Since you opened the door though, I believe many religions declare, in their various texts, that their god has chosen not to reveal Himself until a chosen time, or that He has chosen an earthly entity through which He'll reveal His wishes, or encourages faith in His existence even though you'll never actually see Him in this lifetime.

 

Yeah, but religious texts also tend to be very inconsistent and don't make any literal sense to begin with. By having visions, revelations of a supernatural kind, and so on, that in itself would imply that He/She/It/whatever IS indeed revealing themselves. It is those things that can be scientifically tested; that is, whether or not those visions, revelations, miracles, etc. are supernatural in nature. If it turns out that NO natural or empirical explanation could be found, well, then anything goes... To this date, there hasn't been any evidence whatsoever for any of those things happening, despite claims by religious figures, religious texts, prophets, etc. And, if scientific and empirical explanations for those phenomena work for people who claim to have seen miracles, revelations, etc in this day and age, why can't they be used to explain or debunk the claims in religious texts and their self-proclaimed prophets (if we decide to assume that they are even historically accurate, like the bible claims to be)? Not only that, but they also claim a bunch of other things about supernatural deities (e.g. perfection, etc).

 

 

The atheistic POV usually wants scientific proof. The religious POV often uses a deity's supernatural powers to change natural laws. Both PsOV are requiring something the other is incapable of giving.

 

 

There is no "proof" of God. Additionally, science can't measure a force that can change natural laws at will. Science shouldn't be used either for or against religion.

 

Well, that depends on what atheists you talk to. I tend to be a weak atheist myself, and I am open to the possibility (however unlikely that is...). But to say that religious claims can't be tested scientifically is just plain wrong. We may not be able to "test" for God itself, but we can certainly test claims that people make about his nature (whatever that means....e.g. If God is all loving, then why is there disease, war, poverty, famine, etc... I don't quite buy into the usual explanations, as they tend to be attempts to handwave those away), and the claims that are made in the various texts (e.g. creation). Most of the time, the religious people that I have argued with will make attempts to back up their beliefs with "evidence" in those forms described above, and they often seriously do cite their religious texts as evidence.

 

 

================================

 

And IMHO, so far it seems that supernatural deities/events/whatever are much more likely to be a fantasy than a reality.

[doG]

Science shouldn't be used either for or against religion.

 

So we should all just take L Ron Hubbard's word for it and become Scientologists then?

[SkepticLance]

The stage magician, James Randi, has had a one million US dollar prize offered for some years now. It is to be given to anyone able to demonstrate in front of a special panel of scientists and stage magicians any psychic power. Obviously, psychic power MUST include anything of a supernatural religion base, such as prophecy etc.

 

There have, of course, been a number of claimants to that very large prize. However, the people vetting them are not easily fooled, and so far they have all turned out to be either charlatons or the self-deluded.

 

This is a pretty good first step towards the scientific testing of claims of special religion based powers. So far, such claims have failed.

[swansont]

Some perhaps, but not by all on either side, and no scientific "law" applies to a being which is, by definition and alleged choice, unobservable by scientific methods.

 

This was the illogic I was alluding to earlier, hoping the original poster would address. If you have a being that does not have to follow any physical laws, how can physical laws be associated with said being? Science is not theistic. It is atheistic. As such, how can it be hijacked by atheists?

 

Attempting to disprove God is a separate issue. Anybody can misuse/misapply logic or science. But that's the individual's fault.

[Phi for All]

Well, no, I did not do that at all. I was saying that people (prophets or otherwise) in the bible claim to have visions from, felt His presence, and even talk to God and whatever angels and demons there are. And, to this day there are many people who still claim to be able to communicate or feel the presence of supernatural deities of any kind.

So it's a strawman. I've been pretty clear that I'm talking about using scientific methodology to prove/disprove God (isn't that what you attempt to do when you ask for proof of religious claims?). Undocumented, unpredictable claims and feelings will not pass peer review.

 

 

 

I was going to respond methodically but let's just cut to the chase. If you use science as an argument against religion, religion can't give an answer acceptable to science. If religion uses an omnipotent deity as an argument against science, science can't give an answer acceptable to religion. I just think there will always be an impasse there, one you can't bridge in a meaningful way to both sides, if both sides don't agree to at least drop this circular process.

 

Can't science admit there's a *slight* possibility there is more than can be observed with our current capabilities?

 

Can't religion admit that God doesn't have to defy His own physics to be considered a higher power?

[ydoaPs]

If it's a position on a subject science is not equipped to measure, why would it be right?

What subject? The OP has yet to say!

 

Which supernatural aspects have been proven scientifically? I keep waiting and I've gotten nothing.

You deny that certain religions make claims which are, at least to some extent, falsifiable? Surely the Earth ceasing to rotate for a bit in order to make the day longer would have some effects that we could find. How about a global flood? Splitting of a sea? Dead walking the earth? Giants? Unicorns?

[markus.dnd]

well now. I am not sure if i talk correct but as i have seen religion's evolution past years and in history, it is sort of dying. ( I myself belive in animism an estonian oldest religion and i chose it for practical uses... because when i order my life like i should , from the looks of religion, it is going to actually help to make the world a better place. Some examples are such as keeping the nature and respecting it.) I don't think that i am complete atheist. Although i don't use my religion against science or the other way around. (and for proving gods existence should not the god have some kind of problem with pagans? )

 

i hope i did on get to OT but idea is all science is not taken away by atheists. and there is other way to look on religion than just belief in guy who created world in 7 days...

[Phi for All]

What subject? The OP has yet to say!

Equivocation. The OP was very broad, but I narrowed it down many times to just the subject of an inherently unobservable supernatural deity being observed by scientific methods.

 

You deny that certain religions make claims which are, at least to some extent, falsifiable? Surely the Earth ceasing to rotate for a bit in order to make the day longer would have some effects that we could find. How about a global flood? Splitting of a sea? Dead walking the earth? Giants? Unicorns?

Addressing individual claims is definitely within the purview of science. These are supposed *effects* attributed to the presence of higher powers that are themselves unobservable otherwise. You know that's not what I'm talking about.

 

Science will either explain such effects naturally, or failing in that, will simply say we don't have a natural explanation *yet*. Science will never say that such unexplainable phenomena *might* be caused by supernatural means. That is what religion is asking of science and science will never give them that.

 

Similarly, many religions have a death grip on the idea of omnipotence to explain why natural physics can be suspended in the presence of their god. Until they can admit that it's possible their god simply uses natural laws in ways that only *seem* omnipotent to us, they will never be able to interact favorably with science.

 

I'm merely trying to give both sides a playing field that isn't pre-stacked against either side. To me, saying there is no god and saying a god is above its own laws are fundamentalist and extremist views. Both deny the other's POV on those fundamental levels and there will never be any meaningful discussion as long as they both are ensconced in their unassailable towers of logic and faith.

[Daecon]

What would be the point of there being a god?

 

Why does there even need to be one?