Atheism: The True Path?

[Kyuuketsuki]

So questions with no discernable value then?

To you wanting to understand from the perspective of science. No none.

Or any other it seems.

You didn't make it very well then but, more to the point, conceding gaps in our knowledge, conceding that science is not absolute, that's its explanations are not necessarily the last word is an inherent strength in the philosophy and not a weakness as you appear to be implying.

So you say that It's a strength in 'the philosophy in science' yet a weakness in theology. To me this seems a glaringly obvious contradiction.

'Science of the gaps' seems very succinct.

Science is built on accumulated data, it's rationale is inductive not deductive, it makes no absolute claims ... on the other hand religion is NOT built on accumulated date or inductive reasoning yet it's claims ARE absolute. The strength of science is that it is honest in its limitations, religion by definition is not.

The point is that scientific explanations (allowing for human frailties) are flexible, they change with new evidence, they are non-teleological ... religious explanations are inflexible, they change only with bludgeoned evidence (in other words when a scientific explanation becomes so convincing that religions have no choice but to recognise them or end up looking like a bunch of fucking prats), they are entirely teleological.

So no, "science of the gaps" is an incredibly naïve concept.

No it isn't because you have yet to demonstrate that your god exists ... I could equally well say the cosmic cream cake is timeless and exists outside of time and that would ALSO be meaningless ... defining something for which there is no validatable evidence and calling it god doesn't confer upon it some hyped value (over other silly ideas).

You know very well that it would be absurd to suggest a demonstration that god exists. This shows blatantly that science is totally inadequate. I don't entertain such ludicrous notions, yet you do taking the scientific philosophy tach.

Of course I know it would be absurd but not, I suspect, for the reasons I think you would think I think it absurd ... I think it absurd because I am well aware that you have no bloody evidence and never will do, that you are FORCED to wax philosophical/metaphysical and to claim that we would expect no evidence for deity precisely because you know you CANNOT supply it.

Meaningless it isn't; if you were to remove your science coloured spectacles you'd see the point. The point is that there is no evidence. Clear this hurdle and you can move on.

And if you were to remove your fantasy filters you'd see too ... the actual point (as said above) is there is no evidence because that's precisely what you'd expect to be the evidence for a complete and utter fantasy.

Kyu