Isn't atheism based on science an illogical fallacy by nature?

Question

1. Atheism based on science claims that since there is no scientific evidence of God he must not exist, Occam's razor is used frequently as well.

2. Atheists that rely on science to back them fail to realize that since science came AFTER religion, the burden of proof rests in the hands of those making an opposite claim to an established system.

3. Atheists that base their views in science fail to realize that in order to have their views based in science the observation that God does not exist must go through the scientific process just like everything else. There is no scientifically provable fact that has not undergone scrutiny.

4. Pascals wager means that the scientific atheist takes a bigger risk in assuming that God does not exist than the believer since the believer has nothing to lose. If one says, "they lose their freedom" I will be the first to tell you you are incorrect. coming to God is a free choice and you are free to leave, you as an atheist should know first hand.

Answer 1

One doesnt' need "science" to be an atheist. Although a convenient target by nutjob fundies, it isn't required.

Atheists who existed before evolution, however, were incredibly brave.

Answer 2

1- Logic dictates that without evidence, the most reasonable conclusion is that it doesn't exist.

2- This is grasping at straws. Once again, the burden of proof falls on proving existence. It is impossible to prove non-existence. This is basic logic.

To use your argument, since the creation story came AFTER the origin of the universe, via the Big Bang, the burden of proof rests with having to prove creation.

3- Science, and the scientific method, is not about trying to prove or disprove gods. It is, however, about explaining natural phenomena in a natural world. Of course, all of the findings go through a very rigorous period of review...which includes study of the findings, debates, and where possible, a recreation of the experimentation. You're right, every proven fact, and accepted theory, has undergone intense scrutiny. This is why we know that a natural universe has a natural origin.

The topic of gods and faith is an entirely different matter. While it has been debated, and studied, the only things that can be used as source material for review are the various holy books that are attributed to that particular faith and other peoples interpretations. There is nothing concrete to be tested or reviewed.

4- An atheist takes no risk what-so-ever in not believing in gods. There is no reward, so there is no punishment. Furthermore, the believer does have things to lose...pleasures of this world, and knowledge (in some cases). A believer must sacrifice his basic nature, in order to believe.

"...coming to God is a free choice..." You are incorrect with this statement. Taking up a faith is a result of indoctrination, since it is based on things that have never been proven. One is not born with any knowledge of a god, they must be taught the concept of faith (and usually a child's innocence is used against him because faith is taught at an age when most will accept anything there parents tell them as truth). Once a person has been exposed to the things about this world that have been proven (the Big Bang, evolution, etc.) then one chooses to remain faithful.

Atheism is not the product of science. It is the natural state of life. Science only reveals the truth of the natural world, and allows for one to make an informed decision. It is a tool, not a foundation.

Answer 3

What you have done here is called building a strawman. That is you create an "opponent" based upon weak and erroneous assumptions that you can easily beat up.

It is not that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God but rather the plethora of evidence, both scientific and historical, which point to the origins of these myth based religions that contradict the stories of what various gods have been attributed with doing. Furthermore, atheists do not claim "god must not exist," they simply lack belief in dieties. (Theists have a fantasy that atheists are in turmoil constantly denying the existence of god(s), which is wishful thinking).

Pascal's wager is moot when it comes to atheists. For example, why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You might claim, I believe in God and the FSM doesn't exist. I woud say, really? What if you're wrong? What harm in believing in the FSM, or invisible dragons?

Answer 4

1. Atheism claims that barring extraordinary evidence, there is no reason to entertain an extraordinary claim like god. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Where is the incontrovertible evidence a god exists?

2. Before monotheism, there was what? Pantheism. Before that polytheism. Paganism. Before that - Atheism. Humans were, and are, born atheists. Religion is TAUGHT. Don't teach religion, and everyone is an atheist.

3. You do not understand the scientific method. If the hypothesis is that an all powerful god created the universe, then you must have data to test to support this supposition. Where is the evidence of god? NOT the universe itself, but evidence of a god that can make universes?

4. Pascals wagers doesn't work because one could simply say, "which god is THE god?" What if everyone is praying to the wrong god. What if god is really Snoopy? For example, the Christian god is hardly a "free" choice because you are rewarded for belief (heaven) and punished for non-belief (hell.) It is SPECIFICALLY because of this punishment/reward coercion tactic that Christianity is a flawed, repulsive doctrine, as the victims of the Crusades, or the Inquisitions, or the Witch hunts, or the Spanish conquests of the Americas can attest. They were tortured, crucified, beheaded, flayed, and exterminated for their non-belief.

You have an novice's understanding of this debate. Go study my answers, and come back when you have some real arguments for me to take apart.

Answer 5

1. Atheism is not based on science. You don't need to believe in science to be an Atheist. Atheism means you do not believe in a God. There is no evidence of the monadaba, but I know it doesn't exist. I don't need science to tell me that.

2. Science came long before religion. You base your belief that religion came first on the Bible. I base mine on fact. Science is the reason we are what we are today. Things like hunting, fire, even sleeping in a cave is science. Pre-historic man looked at the effects of sleeping in a dry sheltered cave as opposed to sleeping in the open rain. That is called an experiment.

3. You are right, there is no scientifica evidence that God does not exist. However there is not scientific evidence that he does exist, and there is plenty of scientific evidence that the bible is wrong, wrong, wrong.

4. Are you saying it is safer to believe in God just for the sake of it. Surely such an omnipotent being would be able to see the heart of all men, and know whether they believe in him or just want to go to heaven. Plus, following God causes people to become hateful, judgemental and narrow-minded. If that is what I have to be to go to heaven, then bring on hell. I would rather share eternity with free-thinkers than 1 day as a Christian.

Answer 6

1/2. Basically there is no first come you do not have to proof, because you come first. The burden of proof rests in the hands of those that claim positive to an item.

For example: a person who believe there is a fruit called banana and there is another person who disbelieve there is a fruit called banana. The burden will lies on the person who believe there is the fruit because he need to produce it to the person who disbelieve. The person who disbelieve cannot show a thing call "don't have banana".

3. That is the basic for all things to happen. You cannot say this is different because I say so, hence it is different, you need not observe, it is just there.

4. Pascals wager means pascal is making a joke and it is based on an assumption this entity called a god is stupid and dumb enough to believe a non-believer to be a believer and this religion it is waging for is the only religion on earth.

If not, can you tell me based on pascal wager, you have to believe in Zeus, you have to believe in Hindu Gods, you have to believe .....etc etc .....

but in the bible you can have no other gods. Pascal Wager cannot be used.

Answer 7

No I don't think atheism is a religion. The definition of an atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in a god or some higher unknown power. The absence of a belief in "god" would be no different than the absence of belief in trolls and fairys and unicorns. People that deny that unicorns are real would not be considered religious. Religions are ususually associated with a higher power and, more importantly to argue the difference with atheism, are usually an organized group of people with practices and agreed upon ideas. I would imagine very few atheists are a part of an organized atheist group. As for the science aspect, I don't think most would say the theories on the formation of the universe and life are "facts". They are theories that can never be proven, but as far as theories go I would say that these theories, of course not 100 % correct, are probably a bit closer to way actually transpired than many religious explanations of the origins of life and the universe. I think it is a stretch to say my belief stated above is a religious belief, or blind faith in science. I would speculate that most atheists have a more moderate view like myself.

Answer 8

1. No it isn't, it's based on the insufficiency of religious claims.
2. Using your 'logic', modern religions must disprove older religions. You haven't thought that through, have you? And ultimately atheism predates all religions.
3. It can quite easily be proven that the Christian God does not exist, since we know that certain things he is claimed to have done never happened. In any case, atheism is not the belief that God does not exist, it's the absence of a belief that it does.
4. Pascal's Wager doesn't work unless there is only one god to choose from (there are thousands) and that god rewards worship. It's just as likely that another god exists and will be pissed off with you for worshipping the wrong one. It's just as likely that a god exists who rewards good deeds, and cares nothing for being worshipped. Pascal's Wager also works on the assumption that one can simply choose to believe in God, and that God will be too stupid to realise their motives.
Coming to God is not a choice for most people, it's the result of religious indoctrination during childhood.

Answer 9

you're making the ridiculous claim that supernatural claims that predate modern science should be exempt from scrutiny.

As for pascal's wager:

"If god exists, it's infinitely better to believe, since you get heaven instead of hell for eternity. If he doesn't, it doesn't matter since you're dead anyway. So overall it's better to believe"

This is, of course, false.

Some of the problems with the argument:

* The implied assumption that god may exist (with a 50% probability, no less!)

* The assumption that there is an afterlife with a heaven and hell

* The assumption that the god cares about belief in him/her above all else

* The assumption that if you believe in a god, it will definitely be the same god that actually exists.

* The assumption that you lose nothing if it's false. You have lost a great deal, from time praying to a nonexistent entity (some people pray several hours a day!!!) to morality (your god may ask you to hurt other people) and much more besides.

* The assumption that people can believe in something simply because it benefits them. Would you believe goblins exist for twenty bucks? Why not?

* The assumption that any god won't see through the "believing just to get into heaven" ploy.

For more:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html


What if there is a god that only sends vegetarian musicians to heaven? Aren't you taking a huge risk by eating meat and making your living in a musicless way?

Answer 10

Actually the primacy of a theory has nothing to do with how old it is. That is typical authoritarian thinking. The primacy of a theory depends upon how well it fits observations.
If it does not match observations then it is false no matter how old it is.
God beliefs match no observations at all and contradicts most of them.

Pasquali's wager has been refuted in many ways already. Even the most ardent believers reject it in practice, no matter how much they might argue for it. Pascal's wager demands basically that you should accept any unproven proposition, just to be safe. The problems of such an approach should be transparently obvious.

Answer 11

I am an atheist. I do not base my non-belief in deities on science. I base my non-belief in deities on the lack of evidence. Science has nothing to do with the lack of evidence provided by the believers of deities.