reply to post by NoahTheSumerian
It's a weak argument.
No it isn't. It's not an argument at all. Those that make the claim hold the burden of proof. Theists make the claim there is a God, therefore it
isn't up to science, or atheism, or anyone other than the ones making the claim. You can't disprove the existence of something completely, not
unless you're omniscient. It is incumbent upon those making the claim to provide evidence indicating their conclusion is right.
You're right science cannot disprove God, however if there is a God out there than it is science that has the best chance of finding it, providing
that this god leaves behind some evidence or effects the natural world in some measurable way.
However, to stand vehemently against the possibility of esoteric realities - beyond our capabilities of measurement - is a terribly irresponsible
approach to the quest for true and beneficial knowledge.
I agree that to deny the idea that a god MIGHT exist in some form and to claim that absolutely no god exists anywhere are both arrogant statements.
When an atheist is so bold to claim there is absolutely no God they then accept the burden of proof because they have made a knowledge claim and this
is one challenge they can't rise to since disproving gods entirely is nigh impossible.
However I think that we can make individual claims about the various gods and mythical creatures of mankind's own folktales and religions. For
instance fairies. No one would claim it irresponsible to be opposed to fairies. Yahweh, the Biblical God, is another one that I would reject as are
Zeus, Odin and many other gods. My point is that some creatures and deities can be discarded because a being with their proposed characteristics has
only a negligible level of plausibility.
When the arguments start, acid-spewing atheistic 'scientists' will quite often conveniently forget or belittle the actual beliefs of their
scientific forefathers as irrelevant
I've never seen an acid-spewing atheistic scientist and I really don't appreciate the imagery there. The reason why the faith of the scientific
forefathers is irrelevant is because it has nothing to do with their contributions to science. Another reason it's irrelevant - most of them were
born in a time when nearly everyone had faith in a god or at least had to pretend to for social purposes. The fact is that personal faith is just
that, personal, the only time it becomes of consequence is someone's religious bias interferes with scientific progress.
for evangelising the masses into ignorance of the possibilities of the universe
So you want scientists to go around talking about God now? You are aware that there are scientists who DO believe in God right? Not every scientist is
going around preaching atheism and those that do typically separate their atheism from their academia in the same way a theistic scientists keeps
Sunday sermons out of his peer reviewed publications.
should simply allow room for the possibility that they might be wrong
Dawkins created a scale in one of his books, I don't know which, in which a 1 was certain there was a God and a 7 was certain there was no God. He
described himself as a 6. So I really don't think he considers himself 100% certain. Given that he is a scientist I assume that if evidence
suggesting the existence of a God came along he would follow the evidence.
You seem to be suggesting that atheists and scientists allow for the possibility of something for which there is no evidence because we might get
evidence for it in the future. That's exactly what the vast majority of them are doing. In fact that's exactly the way science works but that
doesn't mean they should start believing in God now BEFORE the evidence is found does it? I mean sure its POSSIBLE there's a God, heck almost
anything is POSSIBLE. And that's the POINT! We don't believe in space penguins and flying spaghetti monsters and galactic car washes because they
aren't indicated by evidence AND NEITHER IS GOD. So for right now almost ALL supernatural things are POSSIBLE but since they are not INDICATED BY
EVIDENCE they are not BELIEVED IN.
Agnosticism. It's the only TRUE stance any real scientist can adopt.
What about Agnostic-Atheism? I have an issue with agnosticism, because basically it simply means that you don't know there's a God... Well really
THAT'S EVERYONE ON THE PLANET. No one really knows if there is a God or not and those that claim to are being intellectually dishonest. We're ALL
agnostics. The question is what do you believe?
Gnostic and Agnostic are about what you KNOW
Theism and Atheism are about what you believe
You can't just be Agnostic.