Pseudo-scientific-atheism

[spidergoat]

What it doesn't disprove is the existence of a generic life form with qualities we might consider god-like.

Yes. Prove to me that God isn't really Trelane, aka the Squire of Gothos!

 

[Cris]

lucy,

But can science conclusively show there is no god behind the natural processes of life, the universe and everything?

Science has no interest in demonstrating that things do not exist. Science is about actual knowledge. If there is no evidence for gods then science is simply silent on the matter. There is no need to take it any further.

I'm an atheist but I am not a scientist, I simply do not believe in god. So if someone asked me to prove there was no god my only response is for them to prove that there is. The atheists here who are students of science or scientists themselves would have a different answer I presume.

Providing your stance is disbelief because theists have not shown any evidence then you have no reason to engage in a futile exercise of proving a negative. The theist is assuming that you are maintaining a belief that gods do not exist, and you are not saying that.

Your simple answer is to ask why they are asking you to prove something you have not claimed. Your purely rational perspective is that you do not find their claims convincing because they cannot show any evidence. The issue of potential non-existence is entirely irrelevent so don't be sidelined by it.

 

[spidergoat]

If there is no evidence for Gods, where evidence should exist, then we may dismiss that there are Gods, in favor of much more well supported naturalistic hypotheses.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yes. Prove to me that God isn't really Trelane, aka the Squire of Gothos!

He isn't?

 

[Cris]

spider,

If there is no evidence for Gods, where evidence should exist,

Not sure you meant that. Why shoud there be evidence for gods?

then we may dismiss that there are Gods,

Although the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. OTOH, continued absence of evidence despite thousands of years of claims tends to indicate that such absence is indeed evidence of absence.

in favor of much more well supported naturalistic hypotheses.

You mean Occams's razor, right?

 

[spidergoat]

spider,

Not sure you meant that. Why shoud there be evidence for gods?

When the definition of that God makes propositions that can be tested empirically. This is present among most religious traditions.

Although the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

How do you know there isn't an elephant trampling in your garden when you are at work? ...Absense of large footprints and droppings.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Scientology being acknowledged by the U.S government has always freaked me out. It was the first time I realized that in 100 years they could easily be as mainstream as other religions so I agree with you. Before this I always thought there was a real difference between cults and religion, now I am not so sure.

Christianity freaks me more than Scientology. Perhaps I don't know enough of Scientology tho.
The main difference between a cult & a religion is the size.

 

[swarm]

"Pseudo-scientific atheist =Atheism blended with the style that an unscientific actor would exude if he were trying to portray a scientist but presented with a smug superiority similar to that of a born again Christian who believes that they have been saved and that they have found the one and only truth in the word of God as found in the Bible.

Its an interesting point.

Not really. Its a standard rhetorical ploy employed by theists to try and shift attention away from their bankrupt position. It mainly works because atheists are basically an honest lot who rightly abhor the idea that they might behave like theists.

But of course even if athiests grow petunias out of their asses, it doesn't change the fact that theism is based on a lie.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

Yes. It's strawman after strawman on&on&on&on&on&on.

 

[S.A.M.]

Do petunias grow in dark places?