Thread: Atheism/Theism & Science..?

This is taken from a PM conversation.

On the topic of bias, no I do not believe any belief is a biased one, just in this particular case bias can not be removed. You and I may be exposed to the same evidence but our reaction to that evidence differs because of the entire collection of our past experiences that will inevitably differ. I'm not calling that bias a bad thing necessarily just as long as you can admit that it is there for you when you say it is there for me, and vice versa. In reality I suspect our beliefs do not actually differ by such a large degree. It is simply that you lean just enough on the side of atheism to adopt that title due to the lack of a better word and I lean just enough to adopt the title of theist for lack of a better word.

I am perfectly fine with you making this conversation public, as long as you do so in its entirety.

As far

Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Any decision that doesn't weigh the evidence equally is a result of bias. When in the event that there is equal evidence for both sides of an issue and one still comes to a conclusion, that is a result of bias. This would mean I am biased as well. All I'm saying is that your particular bias does not make you any more equipped to analyze empirical data and arrive at scientifically sound conclusions than mine does.

So, any belief is bias no matter what? Is it possible to hold a system that is free from bias? I speculate that you may also be integrating the "since you cannot disprove it, you cannot know" argument. I won't respond to that unless you are.

Quote:
Religious beliefs are not always knee jerk appeals to magic due to a lack of information. Some times they are founded on logical examinations of the evidence. I don't think I'm going to convince you of this, however, so I don't see the point of continuing that particular line of discussion. If you would still like me to try, I will though.
Very true. Like I said, it really depends on how you are defining God.

Quote:
We may find that that is indeed the case. One of the reasons why this discussion began, however, was because you have dismissed any and all belief in god as irrational. I have said that I think what you really dislike is the idea of the christian god specifically but since you still seem to assert that you are against any god, it doesn't really matter what my definition is because I am still forced to argue for the very concept of god in any and all of its manifestations.
I am not against any definition of God. Have you been reading what I have been saying..? I said that, depending on how you define God, I may also believe in it (ie. culminating energy mass, etc.). Please do not be apprehensive, I am sincerely interested. It is monotheistic Gods like the Christian one that I have issues with.

Quote:
I have seen you claim that Taosaur is in fact an atheist based on his description of god and I will go as far to speak for him and say that is almost definitely not the case and is a perfect example of why I always butt heads so strongly with atheists. It is the refusal to understand how a different conclusion can be drawn from the same underlying evidence and description of our understanding of how things work that turns me into the constant theist's advocate.
You make a good point that I am not sure how to consider. As I have said, I do believe in a certain concept of a "God" but there exists no term for it. I usually refer to myself as a Chaotic Eudaimonic because it is the best thing that describes the view I hold. Atheism immediately implies militant fundamental rebuttal of all Gods when that is certainly not what I hold. I hope that you can see this in me. Otherwise, I have failed to convey my true beliefs or you have failed to read mine.

Quote:
I honestly can never tell when you are purposely being insulting or when you are oblivious to it, which is most of the reason why I lump you in with the most offensive atheists on this board; because you tend to lump any and all religious stance into the blind faith category when you discuss these things publicly. There is no allowance in your arguments for a rational and informed belief in a higher power and so one must assume that you believe there is no such thing.
I am far willing to give room for supernatural and higher powers. However, so far, no one has given anything besides simple arguments against my beliefs. No one has taken a stance for intelligent design which is by far one of the most popular and strogest stances for theism. I want you to question why no one has mentioned ID because I find it intriguing that people immediately discriminate me for claiming to be an Atheist and refuse to mention strong Theistic arguments like Creation and ID. Instead, I want you to notice that I am also blatantly attacked for the simple proclamation of my belief.

Quote:
Of course I don't deny those things, I am studying for an undergrad degree in physics with the intent of studying quantum mechanics and other branches of theoretical physics in graduate school.

I never once said that an atheist cannot use science. What I said was that atheism is not equal to science or vice versa. There are ill informed and under educated atheists who have only a surface knowledge(at best) of the ideas proposed by modern science and there are people in scientific fields who hold religious beliefs.
Okay. I profoundly agree with you here. I think it would make for a very good thread to show other people because I sincerely agree with you. It is a problem as being an atheist that it is difficult to describe my views without a negative response. I hope you can see that.

Quote:
My entire point in the "will atheism save the world" thread was that just because you are an atheist does not mean that science is going to always be on your side, and any well educated theist can use science to illustrate their points just as easily as an atheist can. Unless your stance is a firm, "I don't know" with nothing further, then you are making speculations on this particular topic. Speculation is healthy; it allows us to formulate new hypotheses and design new tests. Once you claim your stance is definitely true, or even more likely without actual evidence then you have failed at using the scientific method.
I really want to make it evident to you that this is sincerely what I hold. I gladly give room for supernatural beings and God. It is when it is used as a manipulative tool (ie. Jesus camps' worship of George Bush because he is a "saviour of the Christian country" etc.) that I absolutely hate. Any further arguments of mine was to try and show how, if you are to be theist, to maintain individual responsibility and not say things like, "I quit smoking because of God". You can obviously still believe in a God and quit smoking because of your own accord.

With your permission, I would really like to make this conversation public becaues I am embarrased that people get the impression that I am a hateful Atheist or something...




What do you think...?

~