Science is inherently atheistic

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Science deals in facts.  Religion requires anything but facts.

Seems to me there is no common ground whatsoever.

I would disagree, but fair enough. (Science attempts to resolve relationships)

So if you disqualify religion, then I guess you must disqualify atheism.  That pretty much kills the OP statement.

[LastPoet]

So if you disqualify religion, then I guess you must disqualify atheism.  That pretty much kills the OP statement.

How is that? Are you implying atheism is a religion? We have been over this plenty of times, rookie.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

So if you disqualify religion, then I guess you must disqualify atheism.  That pretty much kills the OP statement.

How is that? Are you implying atheism is a religion? We have been over this plenty of times, rookie.

I'm implying it because the law implies it in the United States of America and its territories.  If you live somewhere else, then believe what you like.

[LastPoet]

I'm implying it because the law implies it in the United States of America and its territories.  If you live somewhere else, then believe what you like.

It does? Indeed I am not from that place, but the majority of the users here are from there and I never heard them say atheism its a religion implied by law O.O.

And its not belief. Its not believing if you can't tell the difference between believing and not believing, I am afraid you don't have much grasp on simple logic.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I'm implying it because the law implies it in the United States of America and its territories.  If you live somewhere else, then believe what you like.

It does? Indeed I am not from that place, but the majority of the users here are from there and I never heard them say atheism its a religion implied by law O.O.

And its not belief. Its not believing  if you can't tell the difference between believing and not believing, I am afraid you don't have much grasp on simple logic.

In Dec 2016 President Obama signed an update to the U.S. Religious Freedom Act to make it inclusive of atheists.

Here is the first paragraph from NBC News and their report on it.  Feel free to read the rest, but I'm not posting the whole thing.

"When President Barack Obama signed an update to U.S. law protecting religious freedom late last week, one provision drew special attention: U.S. law now recognizes non-believers as, in essence, a religious group."

You still get to believe what you like, so no reason to be offended.  You also get religious protection from matters involving the USA.  So congratulations on your win.

You also have your own mega churches and sing hymns.  Mostly on Sunday.  They even pass around an offering plate that looks like a red and white striped Dr. Seuss hat from Cat in the Hat.  That's pretty cool.

[polymath257]

I'm still waiting for clarity on just what the OP is claiming here.  If it's that one needs to assume that no god exists to do good science, then it's patently false.  If it's that science cannot consider the hypothesis that God or some other associated thing cannot be scientifically investigated, then that too is false.  (The simple counter-example is intercessory prayer.  Science does not have to establish a mechanism for an effect to establish that an effect exists, so that supernatural causes cannot be demonstrated to be causes does not imply that supernatural effects are therefore not scientific and not real effects.)

I think you're on the right path with what you're saying.  The "sciences" generally focus on what is observable in the natural world. We use controls to test things in the present to gain knowledge about how the world currently, or at some point, existed.  The reason we don't include supernatural is because if it was something that could be demonstrated, it couldn't logically be studied in a controlled environment, since we can't predicts the behavior through naturals means.

I'll try to use a neutral example.  If we believe ghosts like to hang out in a mansion, but in a specific room.  We could set up cameras and various other equipment in that room, but what if suddenly they started floating through walls to avoid the cameras?  What if they had powers that could manipulate the cameras or even not appear at all.  What if they had mind controlling powers that could make you believe they weren't there?  

I know that's kind of a silly example and I'm not saying you should believe in ghosts. What I am trying to say is that our ability to study these creatures in the natural world would be very difficult because we wouldn't know to control them.  They are not bound by our laws, but rather whatever else it is that drives them.

For the record, I don't believe in vampires that turn into bats, Frankenstein monsters, or people turning into werewolves when the moon is full.

I'm not clear why ghosts would be any more difficult to study than any other living thing. The biologist Medawar said that given the most stringent control of environment, the organism will do as it damn well pleases. And that's for standard biology. But we can do science nonetheless.

If we can detect ghosts, we can learn their properties and behaviors. That would then open up new physics (potentially) and even more science.

So science doesn't *require* a commitment to 'physical' things: just to testability of ideas and analysis of data.

But, of course, the actual observations DON'T lead us to believe in ghosts or any new physics associated with them, nor anything typically terms 'supernatural'.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I think you're on the right path with what you're saying.  The "sciences" generally focus on what is observable in the natural world. We use controls to test things in the present to gain knowledge about how the world currently, or at some point, existed.  The reason we don't include supernatural is because if it was something that could be demonstrated, it couldn't logically be studied in a controlled environment, since we can't predicts the behavior through naturals means.

I'll try to use a neutral example.  If we believe ghosts like to hang out in a mansion, but in a specific room.  We could set up cameras and various other equipment in that room, but what if suddenly they started floating through walls to avoid the cameras?  What if they had powers that could manipulate the cameras or even not appear at all.  What if they had mind controlling powers that could make you believe they weren't there?  

I know that's kind of a silly example and I'm not saying you should believe in ghosts. What I am trying to say is that our ability to study these creatures in the natural world would be very difficult because we wouldn't know to control them.  They are not bound by our laws, but rather whatever else it is that drives them.

For the record, I don't believe in vampires that turn into bats, Frankenstein monsters, or people turning into werewolves when the moon is full.

I'm not clear why ghosts would be any more difficult to study than any other living thing. The biologist Medawar said that given the most stringent control of environment, the organism will do as it damn well pleases. And that's for standard biology. But we can do science nonetheless.

If we can detect ghosts, we can learn their properties and behaviors. That would then open up new physics (potentially) and even more science.

So science doesn't *require* a commitment to 'physical' things: just to testability of ideas and analysis of data.

But, of course, the actual observations DON'T lead us to believe in ghosts or any new physics associated with them, nor anything typically terms 'supernatural'.

You're pretty much on point. The simple answer is they are not bound by natural law.  Ghosts may not have been the best example, but I didn't want to pull anybody's strong personal beliefs into it so they didn't feel like I was picking on them.  If you could establish natural laws, then you could study them based on those laws, assuming you could set parameters that they couldn't violate.

[Minimalist]

Science deals in facts.  Religion requires anything but facts.

Seems to me there is no common ground whatsoever.

I would disagree, but fair enough. (Science attempts to resolve relationships)

So if you disqualify religion, then I guess you must disqualify atheism.  That pretty much kills the OP statement.

Totally false as atheism is not a "religion."  In much the same way as "bald" is not a hair color.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I would disagree, but fair enough. (Science attempts to resolve relationships)

So if you disqualify religion, then I guess you must disqualify atheism.  That pretty much kills the OP statement.

Totally false as atheism is not a "religion."  In much the same way as "bald" is not a hair color.

Right.  Unless we're in a court of law.  Oh, also when you get tax deductions for organizing.  If I ever send you a nickel, please be sure to send me a form so I can claim it as a tax deduction.

BTW, what is your favorite hymn?  Which Atheist Megachurch do you attend?  I want to make sure I send my nickel to the right place.

I can't count the times I've heard Christians say "we're not a religion" and then atheist tell them they must because the government says so and you get protections, along with tax exemptions.  Now you've got it.  So how is that any different?  You have Sunday services and fellowship, and children's church.  I'm not laughing at you.  I think it's good you meet and are able to commune with others.  But call a spade a spade.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're losing your grip bud, lol.