My issues with Atheism, Lets talk :)

[Tiberius]

A solid understanding of science and logic tends to lead to an atheistic worldview, not the other way around.

See?? You just defaulted to science to "prove" your point.

With all due respect, no he didn't. Mentioning the word "science" is not scientific. He made a logical argument, not a scientific one. His logic was:

1) A solid understanding of science and logic leads to an atheistic worldview.
2) [He] has a solid understanding of science and logic.
3) Therefore he is an atheist.

Show me how that argument was scientific in any way please.

I think that is the first time I have seen an Atheist admit it was a 'philosophical' issue!

Have you spent your entire life around retarded atheists or something? Seriously? You've never come across a single atheist who thought it was a philosophical issue? Bizarre, if not slightly unbelievable.

[tackattack]

I have a guy at work who's the same way, constantly about the science this and science that and I'm 100% right about everything. I'm glad I don't have to talk to him every day. The reality is though that the small amount of atheists spread through various communities are reflective of the general opinion of atheism. Same for abnormally large groupsing or religios lends to self-righteousness. But, one badatheist that comes off as an overly analytical, pompous, self righteous blowhard that likes to hear themselves talk. will spoil it for everyone. You don't know how glad I am to find this place. You won't find much of that here objectivitees.

[fr0d0]

Science is the very best methodology ever conceived of by human minds for evaluating claims, it has given us more progress and understanding than any other methodology ever known to a point where nothing else is even comparable. Science is not the only methodology Atheists use to reject the claims of God, logic is also a primary tool used to evaluate arguments for the existence of God and thus far there are no logically valid arguments that necessitate the existence of God.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the claim that God exists, this claim is evaluated using various methodologies and the conclusion is there is no reasonable argument or evidence to conclude that God exists.

Nice weighting. Falacial yeah, but good effort anyway

[objectivitees]

Show me how that argument was scientific in any way please.

Because your unstated premise is "Science leads to truth" therefore his claim was appealing to science as proof of Atheism, just as I said.

And yes, I have been hanging out with moronic Atheists.

[Tiberius]

Show me how that argument was scientific in any way please.

Because your unstated premise is "Science leads to truth" therefore his claim was appealing to science as proof of Atheism, just as I said.

And yes, I have been hanging out with moronic Atheists.

Sorry, but the logic works without that premise, which is possibly why it was unstated (i.e. it didn't exist in the first place). Given the premise "A solid understanding of science and logic leads to an atheistic worldview.", if someone has a solid understanding of science and logic, they would be an atheist. It's a logical argument of the form:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore Q.

You can argue with the validity of the premise, since I think it's untrue (I wouldn't say science led to any conclusion about God, but I would say logic does), but you don't need any premise about science leading to truth.

My atheism isn't based on science at all. Even when I was a Christian, I believed in science. Nothing in science caused me to become an atheist.

[objectivitees]

Show me how that argument was scientific in any way please.

Because your unstated premise is "Science leads to truth" therefore his claim was appealing to science as proof of Atheism, just as I said.

And yes, I have been hanging out with moronic Atheists.

Sorry, but the logic works without that premise, which is possibly why it was unstated (i.e. it didn't exist in the first place). Given the premise "A solid understanding of science and logic leads to an atheistic worldview.", if someone has a solid understanding of science and logic, they would be an atheist. It's a logical argument of the form:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore Q.

You can argue with the validity of the premise, since I think it's untrue (I wouldn't say science led to any conclusion about God, but I would say logic does), but you don't need any premise about science leading to truth.

My atheism isn't based on science at all. Even when I was a Christian, I believed in science. Nothing in science caused me to become an atheist.

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'?

[tavarish]

Show me how that argument was scientific in any way please.

Because your unstated premise is "Science leads to truth" therefore his claim was appealing to science as proof of Atheism, just as I said.

And yes, I have been hanging out with moronic Atheists.

Sorry, but the logic works without that premise, which is possibly why it was unstated (i.e. it didn't exist in the first place). Given the premise "A solid understanding of science and logic leads to an atheistic worldview.", if someone has a solid understanding of science and logic, they would be an atheist. It's a logical argument of the form:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore Q.

You can argue with the validity of the premise, since I think it's untrue (I wouldn't say science led to any conclusion about God, but I would say logic does), but you don't need any premise about science leading to truth.

My atheism isn't based on science at all. Even when I was a Christian, I believed in science. Nothing in science caused me to become an atheist.

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.

---

How do you prove atheism is true?

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.

There are many scientists that are theistic, just as there are many unscientific atheists.

He goes to say:

"You can argue with the validity of the premise, since I think it's untrue (I wouldn't say science led to any conclusion about God, but I would say logic does), but you don't need any premise about science leading to truth."

It was not a fallacy of irrelevance, it's just that you're not completely understanding the subject material.

[objectivitees]

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.

---

It was not a fallacy of irrelevance, it's just that you're not completely understanding the subject material.

Yes it was, as my claim was not about what science can do or not do, it was about what Atheists do. Which shows it was you who miss the point and don't understand, not me. Take a course in hermeneutics and save me the time of explaining it to you yet again.

[Darwinian]

If I were to try and prove atheism is true, which of course I can't, then I would probably plump for philosophical arguments over science. Like this one..

If the universe is "everything that exists," and it could be created, then, whatever entity could create the universe, would be outside that universe. It follows, then, that such an entity would be outside "everything that exists." An entity "outside" existence does not exist! A non-existent entity cannot do anything. Creation is an action that an entity must perform; it cannot be performed if the entity that would perform it does not exist!

Atheist have a disbelief in god(s) in common and not necessarily anything else and have many different reasons for being atheistic. Your statement I claimed Atheists default to science to "prove" their Atheism is true. is faulty as no self respecting atheist would even attempt to "prove" there is no god because it is clearly impossible, just as I can't prove there isn't a giant pink elephant in my kitchen that instantly disappears leaving zero trace of it ever having been there as soon as an attempt is made to study it.

[tackattack]

simple substitution would show the faults in that one.