A New Way of Looking at Atheism..

[Zen Badger]

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.

And if they do, so what?

[8BitAtheist]

I like sex, therefore I am god.

[KichigaiNeko]

I have already told you moment...your premises are not valid for this forum...you have obviously misunderstood you tiny select "sample" of atheists. You results will be a total fail.

[genkaus]

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.

Actually, I thought this argument was pretty well-thought out and unlike many arguments presented by theists, it was logically consistent.

This is not a new argument. In fact, this forms the basis of separation of science and religion and the argument why, if any scientist is investigating the realm of god, he's stepping out of his bounds.

However, there is quite a serious mistake in the premise of this argument. You assume that all atheists are atheists because there is no scientific evidence for god. That is invalid.

Secondly, you assume that science only concerns itself with matter and energy. That too is an invalid assumption. Science concerns itself with all that exists. If something like immaterial reality exists, then it would not be beyond the realm of science.

Thirdly, there is something higher from which science itself derives its validity - logic and reason. Actually, the term validity of logic is redundant because the meaning of "valid" depends on logic and cannot be independent of it.

Now, let us consider your argument itself. First of all, belief that matter and energy is all that exists is unnecessary fro atheism. I, for one, believe in existence of conceptual reality. That is the realm of ideas, concepts, theories etc. This reality is dependent upon consciousness or the human mind and consists of fields such as mathematics, logic etc.

I believe it exists, but that does not mean I believe it has a physical existence. In fact, "exists" may not be the correct term for it. To exist means to be in a particular space at a particular time. The concept of the word is so irrevocably tied to physical existence that saying "ideas exist" or
"concepts exist" does not make much sense. However, to the extent the word applies to them, the conceptual reality does exist and is dependent on consciousness.

The entire field of knowledge can be said to exist within this conceptual reality. Therefore, this realm would contain fields such as mathematics, logic, science etc. Science would be the part which accurately reflects the physical reality. To draw an analogy, the conceptual realm would be a reflection of the physical reality and your consciousness is the mirror that reflects it. The reflection cannot exist is either the physical reality or the mirror is not present. To the extent this conceptual world represents the real world, reason would be applicable to it.

Now, moving away from my rant and coming back to the point of the argument itself. Even if you believe that the immaterial exists, you still cannot say that it is exempt from science or reason. Since reason is the only means we have of gaining knowledge, to say that it is exempt from reason would be to say that is is essentially unknowable. That statement itself is a logical contradiction because by saying it is unknowable you are claiming knowledge about it.

Further, even is it is established, by whatever convolution of logic, that the immaterial is unknowable, then theism would not become the rational position. If it is unknowable, then the only rational position can be agnosticism - you do not know and you cannot know.

[Phil]

There ya go guys....

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

---

We already have quackers

Damnit, now I'm hungry.

[Aegrus]

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.

Actually, I thought this argument was pretty well-thought out and unlike many arguments presented by theists, it was logically consistent.

This is not a new argument. In fact, this forms the basis of separation of science and religion and the argument why, if any scientist is investigating the realm of god, he's stepping out of his bounds.

However, there is quite a serious mistake in the premise of this argument. You assume that all atheists are atheists because there is no scientific evidence for god. That is invalid.

Secondly, you assume that science only concerns itself with matter and energy. That too is an invalid assumption. Science concerns itself with all that exists. If something like immaterial reality exists, then it would not be beyond the realm of science.

Thirdly, there is something higher from which science itself derives its validity - logic and reason. Actually, the term validity of logic is redundant because the meaning of "valid" depends on logic and cannot be independent of it.

Now, let us consider your argument itself. First of all, belief that matter and energy is all that exists is unnecessary fro atheism. I, for one, believe in existence of conceptual reality. That is the realm of ideas, concepts, theories etc. This reality is dependent upon consciousness or the human mind and consists of fields such as mathematics, logic etc.

I believe it exists, but that does not mean I believe it has a physical existence. In fact, "exists" may not be the correct term for it. To exist means to be in a particular space at a particular time. The concept of the word is so irrevocably tied to physical existence that saying "ideas exist" or
"concepts exist" does not make much sense. However, to the extent the word applies to them, the conceptual reality does exist and is dependent on consciousness.

The entire field of knowledge can be said to exist within this conceptual reality. Therefore, this realm would contain fields such as mathematics, logic, science etc. Science would be the part which accurately reflects the physical reality. To draw an analogy, the conceptual realm would be a reflection of the physical reality and your consciousness is the mirror that reflects it. The reflection cannot exist is either the physical reality or the mirror is not present. To the extent this conceptual world represents the real world, reason would be applicable to it.

Now, moving away from my rant and coming back to the point of the argument itself. Even if you believe that the immaterial exists, you still cannot say that it is exempt from science or reason. Since reason is the only means we have of gaining knowledge, to say that it is exempt from reason would be to say that is is essentially unknowable. That statement itself is a logical contradiction because by saying it is unknowable you are claiming knowledge about it.

Further, even is it is established, by whatever convolution of logic, that the immaterial is unknowable, then theism would not become the rational position. If it is unknowable, then the only rational position can be agnosticism - you do not know and you cannot know.

Yay! An actual response, not just glib humor. Though the OP's post actually was very hard to understand, the way he worded it.

Looks to me like the same old: "Science can't measure god because I say it can't, therefore we should believe in god" argument. Maybe I misunderstood.

[Rhizomorph13]

Ya know, I was really hoping to engage this person in a real conversation, but apparently their name speaks to how long they planned on staying here.

[houseofcantor]

Therefore, atheism is an unscientific position

Fail.

[Rhizomorph13]

Therefore, atheism is an unscientific position

Fail.

Well, considering the fact that failing to believe in God/god or gods is an unfalsifiable position, it really is unscientific but what of it? Some people think cucumbers taste better pickled.

[thesummerqueen]

Garbage in, garbage out!

You can't explain that!!!

---

The problem is that everything people attribute to an immaterial world is slowly yielding up evidence in a material world as being "mundane" (though no less fantastic.) So what now?