Atheists, how many of you consider scientific knowledge a major contributing factor to your atheism?

Question

Me, I only see science as a reason to reject most claims made by religions, not theism. I am an empiricist. Since there is no evidence for the existence of god, I reject the notion that one exists. No science needed.Evolutionary theory can be proven completely wrong tommorow and that would not prove a god's existence for me.

Answer 1

I wouldn't say it's a major factor, although I do consider myself "sciency"...its more of an awakening; a realization. Know what I mean? It's just that the idea god, and especially religion, is silly, so I guess its the application of logic to a large extent, but I wouldn't say that's science really. But it's more than just logic, but it's hard to explain.

Answer 2

Science may not have all the answers, but the answers it does have contradict many religious texts. Now looking for evidence is a principle that all good science is based on. And there is some evidence for evolutionary theories, Darwin isn't the only one, nor is he my favorite (I prefer Kropotkin). Darwin's theory was actually a post-dark-ages rediscovery of Anaximander's theory from ancient Greece. Theism got organized into Religion & set humanity back, big time. That's why Freethinker activists, such as Christopher Hitchen's, like to refer to themselves as Anti-Theists, instead of just Atheists. Therefore, even if the theory of evolution were to be proved wrong, Theism in general and Religion in particular still wouldn't be right, because they encumbered the whole process of knowledge & understanding. Humanity is still better off looking to the properly done principles of science for understanding the natural world, because good science tests it's hypothesis' over and over, show me a theism that operates that way, and not on faith. This is why Robert Anton Wilson shortens the phrase "Belief Systems" to B.S.

Answer 3

Empiricism is the scientific attitude. I don't think many people are atheists because of specific scientific knowledge, but the scientific attitude, the approach of being interested in the world and how it 'ticks', which underlies all modern society and the developments of the last couple of hundred years, are what inform any atheist or agnostic. And of course, from that viewpoint - the scientific viewpoint, in fact - which theories are disproved in times to come have nothing to do with it. I really don't think anyone goes "oh, evolution is true, that means Genesis is wrong, right, I'll be an atheist". There are plenty of Jews and Christians - the vast majority in fact, certainly all of European (as opposed to US or African) Christianity - who don't see any need to take the Genesis story of creation so literally that they can't accept evolution or any other scientific theory.

Answer 4

I have always been an atheist. Long before I heard the word "science" I had already decided that god does not exist. Even today, I have little understanding of science, but that has absolutely no effect on my disbelief if god.

It works like this:

---There is no evidence for god's existence
---So I choose not to believe in god.
---At this point the religious discussion is over.

---Now you want to talk about science.
---OK. Suit yourself.
---But it has no bearing on my unbelief in god.

Answer 5

I think believing or not believing are both trivial and difficult to just decide. To me the idea of a god or goddess is silly, but my opinion is only limited to the idea of a superior being in OUR image ; for a "god" to be some crazy matter that created us for an unknown reason sounds good to me - and that sounds reasonable to my mind.

I also strongly reject any kind of religion as it's incredibly egotistical to have so many stories that make sense in a humans mind as the key to the universe, are we so self adoring that we are sure that humans know the origin of the universe?

Answer 6

Scientific knowledge frames my opinions, it's not a contributing factor, but it's what keeps atheism the most viable option(mostly by slaughtering most religious arguments).

Edit
To my fellow below, is the purpose dictated to you by god more meaningful than the purpose dictated to you by me? does the person dictating the purpose makes it more or less meaningful?
If god actually existed, his purpose dictated to you would be only meaningful to him, as you purpose dictated to you by me is only meaningful to me. Thus even if god exists we fall to the second scenario which you so much fear.

Or as you said:
When we accept God, we enter into a fantasy world together with him, trying to invent feelings of purpose and meaning and worth when we know they cannot exist.

If there's nothing to validate god, his opinion becomes meaningless.

Answer 7

I absolutely agree.

My non-belief in invisible sky deities stems from common sense (and a healthy dose of maturity) but I do utilize science to point out the absurdity of religion's SPECIFIC claims, such as

the Earth being 6,000 years old or
Two of every animal fitting into a big boat.

Answer 8

You got that from me! I'm just kidding. I find that other atheists have often came to the same conclusions that I have independently from me.

Anyways, you could disprove all of science and that would offer exactly 0 evidence for the existence of a god. I disbelieve in god(s) for philosophical reasons that science just so happens to back up every time.

Answer 9

As a wee child, my interest in nature probably had more to do with atheism than being bored in church with my parents.

However, science is just one interest of mine. New revelations in all areas reinforce my atheism but it is not all of it.

My conclusion was based at an early age that the supernatural was stupid. That's how I put it back then.

Answer 10

As my profile says, I suck at science and evolution theory is not the reason why I don't believe in god(s). Human nature is.

In my case, science is only a small contributor that ''strengthens my atheism'' but basically it plays no major role.
.