Atheism is anti-science
Posted on: May 31, 2007 - 4:45pm
Offline
Atheism is anti-science
There's always a theist who thinks science can be used to prove God:
http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html
I got this webpage from the google ads on the right of this webpage. Google Ads is probably a Christian. It is a sentient software that now believes in God. Programmers don't have to worry about using "Saved" after updating it.
Let me summarize this article for you all:
The writer believes that science needs the supernatural in order to be coherent. Since atheists deny the existence of the supernatural, it follows that atheism is against science and requires the existence of miracles even more than religion.
- Login to post comments
I followed the Greatful Dead for a summer and even then I couldn't come up with such tripe.
Although I did see God on stage in Oakland...never mix mescaline and shrroms.
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
I read the subject and the only thing I could think was "troll".
More God of the Gaps pleasantry. Whoopty-fucking-shit.
Two words: Occam's Razor. Even "just because" is a preferable answer to a deity and all the assumptions that must follow.
I'm actually getting tired of responding to the same piss poor reasoning again and again.
My god he's completely right. I'm converted!
F*ck you atheist suckers, I'm on a one-way trip to heaven. Could I have a theist tag please?
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
hmmm. well, it IS a miracle that anyone could come up with such an asinine theory
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
I pity da foo'
Okay, the topic's name was the best thing I could come up with. I am by no means a troll, or a christian.
I said this:
"The writer believes that science needs the supernatural in order to be coherent. Since atheists deny the existence of the supernatural, it follows that atheism is against science and requires the existence of miracles even more than religion."
I can summarize that page as follows: the writer believes that eventually science is forced to believe that supernatural events are needed in order to explain certain things. In other words, eventually science needs the existence of a magician who can "really" pull rabbits out of his hat.
Occam's Razor does not prove God because God is not the simplest of explanations for the existence of things. Why? Because the God-believer would need to explain why God can do the things he does. The simplest explanation for the existence of the universe would be that everything always existed in one way or another. Such belief, even though it may seem dumb, does not have the contradiction created by the layman idea that everything needs a creator (if the creator always was, then not everything needs a creator).
Quit yo' jibba-jabba
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
This annointed fella is an idiot. We do not believe in the supernatural because there is no scientific evidence of anything beyond what is natural. Science deals with what there actually is to be found, if something supernatural could be found then science would incorporate it. However, since the natural is everything that has force and is made up of something even the supernatural would have to have natural properties in order to exist, i.e. if there is force there is nature. The supernatural is therefore nothing, it has no force it is not made of anything, and is therefore completely redundant.
For there to be a God, particularly one that can break the boundaries and influence the natural world it would require a force and therefore would be natural. But no such force has ever been discovered. There is no force that goes between the sky and someone's head when they pray. Even if a force existed outside of the universe (or in parallell to it) that could be called God, it would have to be natural, since anything with force is natural, physical.
The term supernatural, in specific relation to the Christian God seems to be a construct added later on. The God of Genesis seems "tangibly" physical. The supernatural God is a get out clause, kind of like "Oh you can't sense him because he's supernatural". Yup, very handy memetic adaption and one that has probably helped keep Christianity alive in the last few centuries since the Enlightenment and has quite probably led to the NOMA fallacy.
Atheist Books
The "Amazing Randi Foundation" offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could prove a supernatural event.
There's a video on youtube (I don't have the URL with me, or the time to search it) of Richard Dawkins talking to Randi in front of a small crowd, and Dawkins asks James Randi if he is afraid that someone will truly prove a supernatural event and get the million dollars.
Randi tells him that if someone did prove a supernatural event to the Amazing randi foundation, he'd be more than glad to give him the prize money, for that person would be doing only one thing: proving the existence of something science has yet to explain.
What most theists don't seem to understand is that everything can be explained. The webpage's writer thinks that supernatural stands for "not requiring an explanation" instead of standing for "something science hasn't explained yet".
lol, theists come up with even more retarted statements every day.
so, to follow science, you have to believe in something that science wouldn't allow to exist?
Yup, it's utterly ridiculous.
Atheist Books
Saying I believe in the supernatural, is like the same thing as saying you believe in Magic, understand that Everything will always have a Natural Explination behind it. Just ask any Magician to be honest and he'll tell you the same thing. Just because some people get fooled by the illusion doesn't mean that it's something more that what it Really Is. In this special case Only...just because there's a lack of evidece (at this split second in time), doesn't suggest a lack there of. Understand that Science grows over time. Not like religion which works in "reverse" claiming things, then finding evidence to keep claims alive...
Slimm,
I don't think the troll comment referred to you. I hope not anyway!
Yes, there are plenty of theists that can twist what they know about science to make it fit their religious belief. There is another thread here started by musicdude and after about 8 pages of excellent scientific explanations being presented, the best musicdude could say was "Nuh uh!! You guys just don't understand science like I do." I am most assuredly not a science minded person although I find it interesting, but even I could tell this person had never so much as cracked open a science book. They read tripe from christian sites and spew it back out to make it look like they know something.
For me the best part about this site is that the sciency folks around here are very, very patient with me as I try to understand what I don't know about science. Not one time, though, has anyone ever said "Just take my word for it." They very much encourage me to learn on my own and ask questions. And I love it.
My implication wasn't that you were a troll, just that the subject made me assume you were going to be.
For one thing, atheists don't deny the supernatural. Most people who happen to be atheists reject claims of the supernatural, due to lack of evidence. The only things atheists reject as a whole are claims of gods.
For another thing, the person has no idea how science works.