I was watching YouTube videos earlier today, and I came across a channel called SciencNET. I watched a few of their videos, then I realized that the whole channel is basically just clips of different atheists talking about religion. Many of the featured atheists such as a Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, and Bill Maher are not scientists even in a broad sense of the word. Other channels such as ScienceToday and Science and Atheism have similar content. 

It seems to me that these channels are trying to establish an association between science and atheism so that people will assume that atheism is the position of reason. I know there are plenty of religious channels that do the same thing, but I think we can agree that the atheistic worldview has done a better job of convincing the general population that it is the official position of science. 

This is frustrating to me because the scientific method is so effective because it (in theory) prevents personal bias from influencing the data. When we begin to call philosophical positions scientific, we are potentially confusing the people who have a narrow schema of science. The distinction is almost never made between the empirical sciences that are based on observation, error propagation, and statistical description of results vs. the philosophical speculation that people come to based on the results of the empirical studies. 

What do you guys think? Is atheism a scientific position? If so, why? If not, are you frustrated at the fact that there are people who seem to be trying to subliminally promulgate a philosophical position under the mask of science?

(December 23, 2016 at 2:46 pm)AAA Wrote: I was watching YouTube videos earlier today, and I came across a channel called SciencNET. I watched a few of their videos, then I realized that the whole channel is basically just clips of different atheists talking about religion. Many of the featured atheists such as a Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, and Bill Maher are not scientists even in a broad sense of the word. Other channels such as ScienceToday and Science and Atheism have similar content. 

It seems to me that these channels are trying to establish an association between science and atheism so that people will assume that atheism is the position of reason. I know there are plenty of religious channels that do the same thing, but I think we can agree that the atheistic worldview has done a better job of convincing the general population that it is the official position of science. 

This is frustrating to me because the scientific method is so effective because it (in theory) prevents personal bias from influencing the data. When we begin to call philosophical positions scientific, we are potentially confusing the people who have a narrow schema of science. The distinction is almost never made between the empirical sciences that are based on observation, error propagation, and statistical description of results vs. the philosophical speculation that people come to based on the results of the empirical studies. 

What do you guys think? Is atheism a scientific position? If so, why? If not, are you frustrated at the fact that there are people who seem to be trying to subliminally promulgate a philosophical position under the mask of science?

It can be a scientific position when going against theistic claims such as the world is 6000 years old and creationism is a thing, but mainly its just not belief in god.

Yes... in that there is no fucking evidence for your silly god which has ever been presented.

Science, you see, must also evaluate the lack of evidence for a position.

Nah atheism is either the belief that gods do not exist or an absence of belief in the existence of gods

(December 23, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yes... in that there is no fucking evidence for your silly god which has ever been presented.

Science, you see, must also evaluate the lack of evidence for a position.

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

(December 23, 2016 at 3:07 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 23, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yes... in that there is no fucking evidence for your silly god which has ever been presented.

Science, you see, must also evaluate the lack of evidence for a position.

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

NOPE

(December 23, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote:

(December 23, 2016 at 3:07 pm)AAA Wrote: Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

NOPE

Why not? What do you think about cells?

How much science (or logic) does it fucking take to know that a supposedly Holy and Inerrant book written by an omniscient, omnipresent and eternal deity that nevertheless professes his only son died on BOTH Thursday and Friday is full of shit ?

(December 23, 2016 at 3:11 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 23, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: NOPE

Why not? What do you think about cells?

Pitiful little things, but so convoluted, inefficient, tenuous and ass backwards in so many of their vital operations their designer must be so dumb that random chance could easily have done a better job.

I noticed that, atheists are so discouraged by a brutal worldview of theists(burn or serve), that they are ready to endlessly hide under the scientific material worldview, until actual God shows up.