A New Way of Looking at Atheism..

[Phil]

(16th January 2012 01:40)a moment Wrote:  I need you to use your brain a little before you fill your stomach, do you really think that you can refute an argument just by saying "it‘s nothing"?

ok, your reply is nothing.. here is your cheese dressing.

---

There is no argument in your post to refute. Hell, it says in your OP that you aren't even posting your point yet so either post your point or go screw off somewhere else.

[Minimalist]

Quote:Atheism is ,as we all know, a negative position towards belief in a deity or deities,

I disagree with your premise. I am not negative at all.

In fact, I am positive that theists have no evidence at all worth the name for their beliefs.

[a moment]

(16th January 2012 02:33)Zen Badger Wrote:  Since atheism predates science by thousands of years your premise is invalid.

regardless whether this piece of information is true
or not, I say to you the same thing I said the one before you : it is evident from my post that my atheists in question are the ones who claim to choose atheism on scientific basis.
thanx for your comment.

[Cthulhu Dreaming]

Let's say for sake of argument your conclusion is valid.

So what?

[Rhizomorph13]

I believe that there is probably no god because there is no evidence for one. I also am a monist who believes there is probably only a material world because of the lack of evidence for a non-material world. So I suppose I am the type of atheist you are looking for.

Hey, what if dualism is real and there is a non-material world that can interact with the material and vice-versa (Through prayer maybe)? What if science were to construct a material device that could project a non-material substance into the "other" place and bring back information about it? Wouldn't that be neat?

Welcome theist, to our lovely forums. I hear quacking and see webbed footprints.

[a moment]

(16th January 2012 02:41)Phil Wrote:  

(16th January 2012 01:40)a moment Wrote:  I need you to use your brain a little before you fill your stomach, do you really think that you can refute an argument just by saying "it‘s nothing"?

ok, your reply is nothing.. here is your cheese dressing.

---

There is no argument in your post to refute. Hell, it says in your OP that you aren't even posting your point yet so either post your point or go screw off somewhere else.

since I have wrote nothing, then no one comment on nothing, so go look for cheese somwhere else.
whenever you manage to find something here i'll be more than happy to hear what you think about it.

[Braveheart]

(16th January 2012 01:18)Phil Wrote:  Can I have some Blue Cheese dressing on this word salad please?

Totally agree with you Phil, I'll have some cheese too!

[KichigaiNeko]

There ya go guys....

Or would you prefer Gorgonzola? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_cheese

---

We already have quackers

[Zen Badger]

(16th January 2012 04:21)Braveheart Wrote:  

(16th January 2012 01:18)Phil Wrote:  Can I have some Blue Cheese dressing on this word salad please?

Totally agree with you Phil, I'll have some cheese too!

Yeah, I could go some nice smoked Edam. And some cabanossi.
Yum

[Erinome]

(16th January 2012 01:13)a moment Wrote:  .

Atheism is ,as we all know, a negative position towards belief in a deity or deities, claiming that the believer in god didn't base his belief on conclusive scientific grounds, and since this religious position is held regardless of science, therefore it can be considered unscientific or even a belief in a myth.

if this understanding of atheism is true, then I might proceed to my point.

we can see that the validity of the atheistic position is assumed to be taken from the validity of science, thus appointing science to be the higher judge of the validity of any claim. How did we know that science is what evaluates every single claim? we knew from the idea that everything in life is matter/energy,and science is the most reliable way to know matter, i.e. to know everything.

However, if we believe that life is not only matter/energy, that we live in two worlds physical and metaphysical, then science (i.e. material science) will still obtain its respected status, but only in the material world, because we can't enter the immaterial world with science‘s material tools.

In the case of belief in the materiality of everything in life, and the case of belief in the material and immaterial worlds together, science has nothing to say. Scientifically, we cannot know whether life is only material nor material and immaterial. Therefore, the belief that life is only material is unscientific (but not necessarily anti-scientific).

Since the belief that there is no immaterial world is unscientific, then it is unscientific to use science as the most reliable way to evaluate every claim. Therefore, atheism is an unscientific position.

Atheists' positions vary. Atheism isn't a cult of science. A lot of us love science, and find it irresistible, but atheism is not a scientific position. If anyone has an objection, they can just go fuck themselves.