On the very root of Materialism.

[Descartes]

One of the fundemental concepts in Athiesm, or Materialism in general, is that life is only matter, leading to another concept : the only means of true knowledge is science, and if any claim does not have a scientific, i.e. material, evidence can not be considered true.

This view, however, is self-contradictory. Because it sets a condition for the validity of any calim that it has to be scientific while this condition itself is not scientific. There is no scientific evidence proving the idea of science as the only true means of human knowledge, It is merely a belief that can be jstified by philosophical propositions, exactly like belief in God!


.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wrong, they're conclusions reached through observation, repitition, and falsification. You don't just believe the plane will fly do you. You don't just believe the pc will fire up..do you?

[Darwinian]

Science is simply the careful and meticulous study of the world around us using tried and tested principles. There are of course many things that science cannot test or prove one way or the other. However, that does not mean that they must have equal weight or validity.

If you are saying that a belief in God is just as valid as the belief that science is our best method of questioning the Cosmos then you could say that about any ideology or belief system, no matter how bizarre or insane it may sound.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even in Solipsism's fantasy land, apparently the observer still "imagines" science as a way of describing the world around itself. Solipsism doesn't build a car, for example. There is one assumption made about the world around us, this assumption is based entirely on the common experience of life. The assumption is that the world around us is knowable. Anything else you wish to add is just religious baggage.

[theVOID]

One of the fundemental concepts in Athiesm, or Materialism in general, is that life is only matter, leading to another concept : the only means of true knowledge is science, and if any claim does not have a scientific, i.e. material, evidence can not be considered true.

Firstly, getting into semantic breaks like "true knowledge" isn't going to make you easy to understand - Knowledge is poorly defined period, it's not useful to talk about in a philosophical discussion.

Secondly, science is not seen as the only means, but the most effective and reliable, it's conclusions are contingent upon the sum of the data. Personal experience and Philosophy are certainly ways we can know certain things about reality but they are generally less effective.

Thirdly, Naturalism or Materialism is a tentative conclusion, it is the idea that it is all we have good reason to believe. If someone gives us good reason to believe that there is something immaterial in existence, suppose it is shown to be logically necessary, then I'll happily accept it and will no longer be a naturalist. The idea is that we should not believe something until we have good reason to, empirical evidence is simply the epitome of reason.

This view, however, is self-contradictory. Because it sets a condition for the validity of any calim that it has to be scientific while this condition itself is not scientific. There is no scientific evidence proving the idea of science as the only true means of human knowledge, It is merely a belief that can be jstified by philosophical propositions, exactly like belief in God!

And if you always deal in misguided absolutes you're going to find yourself making many more stupid statements like that one.

[The Grand Nudger]

One might also ask what philosophical propositions have convinced the op regarding the existence of a theists god (even the deists god stretches what we use the word god to describe). The amount of people claiming to come across positive affirmation of god through philosophy or reason is beginning to wear on me. The god proposition is faith; it opens with faith, supports itself with faith, and concludes with faith.

[Welsh cake]

One of the fundamental concepts in Atheism, or Materialism in general, is that life is only matter, leading to another concept: the only means of true knowledge is science, and if any claim is not scientific, i.e. material, evidence can not be considered true.

Fixed for you. Atheism is not a worldview, unless of course you meant to say atheists and materialists in general in which case that also works.

Now materialism is not self-contradictory, I don't know why you would say that, while it has had its fair share of criticism due to its shortcomings in defining matter and the scientific findings in physics such as Quantum mechanics and Chaos theory leading to modern day physicists rejecting it as a valid or meaningful worldview, but the philosophy of itself asserting the only thing that exists is matter doesn't actually mean it contains elements that contradict each other.

Of course attacking philosophical positions such as Materialism (and to go further Naturalism, Physicalism and so on) does not in anyway add any weight to the whole god hypothesis argument, if for example Materialism is proven to be completely false a god or gods are not then automatically assumed to be proven true, in that, it or they exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Clear example of "Last Man Standing Evangelism". Prop your pet theory up next to a few strawmen you've rehearsed against, knock them down, and refuse to defend your own position, or make any definitive statements until the closing argument. Then leave the audience to stew. Infotainment at it's best.

[LastPoet]

Man, I really dislike these hit and run posts

[Ace Otana]

This view, however, is self-contradictory. Because it sets a condition for the validity of any calim that it has to be scientific while this condition itself is not scientific. There is no scientific evidence proving the idea of science as the only true means of human knowledge, It is merely a belief that can be jstified by philosophical propositions, exactly like belief in God!

Wrong on every level. Science is a tool, a method for which we use to look deep into the unknown, with observation, testability and verification. It functions on principles. I think you're only attacking science because science does not support your beliefs. All I can say is....get used to it.

Now to flood the thread with some reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4