My issues with Atheism, Lets talk :)

[tavarish]

Adrian was giving an example of how a statement such as "A solid understanding of science and logic leads to an atheistic worldview." is not necessarily true as a function of science itself. It doesn't steer you toward a conclusion about God or gods. It has no say in unfalsifiable claims.

Oh my Effing god. Can you stay on topic? Whether "science" itself "has no say" in proving or disproving anything, it still is nevertheless the claim Atheists make as a default. It is precisely what the post I responded to did, right after saying it doesn't. It makes no difference if science can't prove anything, but my post did not say it could. It said Atheists default to science to provide arguments that Atheism is true. Then the post claimed that is not true, and immediately thereafter said that an understanding of science tends to lead to Atheism. That statement was an appeal to science's efficacy in doing exactly what the poster said is not done. my comment was to point out that even if you believe science can't "prove" anything, it doesn't stop Atheists from trying to use it nonetheless. Sheesh.

---

I don't understand what you're trying to assert. If you don't claim that science leads to atheism, does atheism lead to science?

Creationists regard what they believe as scientifically based. Would you also contend that science may also lead, or have a hand in promoting creationism?

And again, you can lack a belief in God and not have a scientific basis for it.

"I don't feel that he's there, so I don't believe". That's not defaulting on science, it's purely subjective reasoning.

[Autumnlicious]

I don't understand what you're trying to assert. If you don't claim that science leads to atheism, does atheism lead to science?

Creationists regard what they believe as scientifically based. Would you also contend that science may also lead, or have a hand in promoting creationism?

And again, you can lack a belief in God and not have a scientific basis for it.

"I don't feel that he's there, so I don't believe". That's not defaulting on science, it's purely subjective reasoning.

For real life proof of the above, see below:

[Tiberius]

Wow, you're kidding right? I claimed Atheists default to science to "prove" their Atheism is true. He said, a solid understanding leads to Atheism. Which part of that wasn't a defense of using science to defend Atheism? Simple English man. Your syllogism is (though a valid modus tollens), irrelevant. Are you familiar with fallacies of irrelevance, or do you just like saying things like "If 'P', then 'Q'. 'P'. Therefore 'Q'?

Yes, you claimed atheists default to "science" to prove their position. Defaulting to "science" (remember, we're using Simple English like you asked for) means that you use a scientific method to prove the position. Using science to defend atheism would be statements like "God is not scientifically observable, therefore he doesn't exist" which is of course a bullshit statement. Saying that scientists tend to be atheists (which is true by the way) isn't trying to prove anything, all it's doing is asserting a correlation. My modus tollens was his argument in a proper form. Argue the point if you want to, but don't claim he tried to use science to prove his position when he did not.

Oh my Effing god. Can you stay on topic? Whether "science" itself "has no say" in proving or disproving anything, it still is nevertheless the claim Atheists make as a default.

As I've said before, no we don't. You are being repetitive and ignorant now.

It said Atheists default to science to provide arguments that Atheism is true. Then the post claimed that is not true, and immediately thereafter said that an understanding of science tends to lead to Atheism. That statement was an appeal to science's efficacy in doing exactly what the poster said is not done.

No, it was a valid observation that an understanding of science tended to lead to atheism. It neither confirmed atheism, nor did it attempt to link a scientific basis for atheism. It's the same type of argument as "a higher intelligence tends to lead to atheism". Whilst it is true that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, the point no more validates atheism than it validates intelligence as a meaningful way of determining what is true.

If you really think atheists always default to science, then what is the point of you even being here? You'll evidently ignore all our philosophical points because you'll see "science" in them somewhere. If you haven't learned after 10 pages that atheists don't default to science, I'm not sure what else we can do with you. So either stay and talk about atheism or god or whatever, present an actual argument (other than "See! He said the word science!!!"), or get lost.

[tavarish]

I don't understand what you're trying to assert. If you don't claim that science leads to atheism, does atheism lead to science?

Creationists regard what they believe as scientifically based. Would you also contend that science may also lead, or have a hand in promoting creationism?

And again, you can lack a belief in God and not have a scientific basis for it.

"I don't feel that he's there, so I don't believe". That's not defaulting on science, it's purely subjective reasoning.

For real life proof of the above, see below:

Religulous didn't have a bit of science in it. It was still funny as hell though.

[leo-rcc]

Maher is anti-vac, hardly scientific at all.