Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Brian37]

Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out the stumbling block of humans in science when they hit a gap far too many times that ends up with "well we cant figure out anything else so god did it". He points out that limits our discovery and slows it down. It is not a good way of thinking when you hit something you have yet to understand. The ethical open minded nature of scientific method is to go with established data that is confirmed and build on that. By discarding bad claims you open the door to knowledge. "I don't know" does not negate, nor should it, the use of a trash can to throw bad ideas in. Not only does it not negate it, it is the wise way to keep that door open.

FWIW, Neil deGrasse Tyson considers himself to be an agnostic.

You are not telling us something we don't already know. Neil still does not hold any belief in any god, he simply does not like the stigma of the word atheist. "Atheist" is "off", if he would simply use the word "agnostic" in reference to the future, he would know it is not in conflict with his current "off" position.

Neil is simply stuck on an old and improper definition of the word "agnostic". But if you ask him flat out if he currently believes in a god he'd say there is no good evidence to hold that position currently.

Agnostic is not a position itself. It is a qualifying word. Huxley improperly created that word and it has been misused since.

He is in reality an agnostic atheist. He currently has an empty glass or "off" as far as what he knows so far. In that context he is an atheist. "Agnostic" which he improperly uses as a position, in reality he is merely admitting he cannot claim absolute certainty about the future.

And if you watch his entire cosmos series even given that, he'd still agree with me that you do not have to cling to bad claims, or default to every claim being equal by default. And he would also agree with me that it is ok to use the trash can of bad ideas.


Technically and semantically only for me, and again based on our best current data, while admitting I am "agnostic" about the future, even given that, the likelyhood of a god being found is so infinitely remote, it still isn't going to hurt science to throw such a claim in the trash can.

Science is CURRENTLY pointing away from a god, as even being a requirement. And on top of that biological evolution and neurology and psychology prove that human perceptions are notoriously flawed. We also have tons of historical evidence of myths that were once believed to be fact and dead gods no one believes in today.

So right now, at this point in science and human history, the evidence is pointing to humans making up gods.

There is an evolutionary reason humans make up gods. The word for that is anthropomorphism. Humans projecting their own qualities on the world around them.

It is a very base reflection of a baby's desire to have the parent pay attention to them and protect them. It is a false perception no different than when someone sees a butterfly in an inkblot.

I am not saying any of that trying to be sarcastic. The above is literally the scientific reason false perceptions lead to claims of gods.

It is also the false perception that will lead a sports player to falsely think lucky socks or a lucky bat makes them successful. It is a result of selection bias and sample rate error and flawed perceptions.


In evolution, a flawed perception can lead to success, and still be based on a false perception. The ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful surrounding their society around fictional polytheistic gods the literally thought were real.

Ever see videos of a buck smash through windows? It isn't always because the deer got scared. Bucks in heat compete with other bucks. A buck can see its own reflection in a door or a window falsely thinking it is another buck.

God claims really amount to our species ignorance in failing to see all we are doing is projecting our own desires on the world around us. We create these gap answers to create groups, and to justify cooperation and justify dominating or defending ourselves from outsiders, just like a buck can mistake that reflection as a competing buck.