Is atheism really that scientific?

Question

"Scientists, if you're not an atheist, you're not doing science right," PZ Myers -- a well-known blogger, biology professor and atheist -- regularly preaches his religion to his faithful followers.

Well, if that's the case research polls say that 51% of all scientists must be doing it wrong as they believe in a higher power?!?!! Even famous scientists in the past who have shaped the world as we know it and had a huge impact of what we understand, discovered most about this universe and physics which controls it, such as: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and even Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Athiesm is now left with a faith they believing in, created by the very people that they mock and an intelligent person that even said they where possibly wrong and illogical to rule it out. The Big Bang Theory has a logical holes in it, which Atheists filled up and proved by believing in something also invisible known as Dark Matter/Energy.

Plus they use many other theories which Christians and other religious people created!

Does this mean that it's too late for science? Has religion already pillaged the minds of researchers worldwide?

"Where's your evidence?" atheists mockingly question. "You can't prove that God exists!" they accuse (correctly). Yet, hypocritically, strict atheists are guilty of the exact same crime: belief without evidence...

So is atheism really that scientific with all your theories, faiths and assumptions dumped on top to fill in the missing gaps?

Answer 1

No, it really isn't. We have this idea that religion and science are against each other, thanks mainly to skeptic pundits like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (RIP). But really science and religion have little to no conflict.



Atheism is branded as a purely scientific effort in the attempt to legitimize it. However, atheism has really done nothing for science, and science has been misinterpreted as proof for atheism. That doesn't mean atheists are stupid, but the fact is that really there is not that much that is scientific outside of appearance.

Answer 2

Though some may mock theists, I do not. I do know that some of the worlds best minds of science are of one faith or another. You are a bit mistaken when you say that atheism is a religion. By definition, atheism is an antonym of religion. You do not have to be a scientist nor does being a scientist mean you have to be an atheist.

Your argument of "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is pointless. Hitchen's Razor states that the burden of proof relies on the claim maker and not it's opponent. In other words we do not need to prove god does not exist. This would be like if I claimed the center of Pluto was made of peanut butter. Prove me wrong. Oh, you can't? Then it must be made of peanut butter.

The only reason why theists outnumber atheists is because theists had a huge head start. Back then little was known about science so everything was attributed to a deity. In the last few hundred years we have found out the real reasons behind things once thought to be done by a deity. Before you get too confident in your high percentage you should look at recent trends. Your percentages are shrinking at about 10%, but atheist have grown 200%. Enjoy being the majority for now.

Though I do not need it, I do have logical proof that there are no deities. If you are one of the religions that are bible based you forget that you guys should have real tangible evidence of God. The 10 commandments are suppose to be stone tablets so they should still exist. They are not carved but written in God's hand, so if we examined them we would be able to tell. I doubt if they ever did exist that they would have been left behind or lost. So just bring them forward and show us. Also, do not try to fake them like that shroud the Christians tried with.

Funny how you asked the question toward atheist but only like the theist answer. Does that mean that if you thought 2+2=7 and you asked a mathematician what 2+2 is. They when you look at the answers you disregard the people that say 4 and like the idiots answer that says 7. This seams counterproductive to your question.

Answer 3

Gosh, in all your rant you seem unable to present a single bit of reliable evidence for your god or any god. Don't feel bad; nobody ever has.



For thousands of years, people have said that their gods were behind what they didn't understand -- life, morality, lightning, stars, earthquakes, the origin of life, the world or the universe, etc. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question solves nothing. It's just lazy thinking that adds an unwarranted level of complexity and stops you from asking more questions.



Atheism is based on reliable evidence and rational thought. Atheism is just the lack of belief in any god. Atheists technically don't have to prove anything. Atheism is true by default until somebody proves that a god exists. I seriously doubt if anyone ever will.



Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest who first proposed a hypothesis for the origin of the universe. However science has changed significantly since Lemaître's initial idea. His primeval atom contained all the mass of the universe. Physicists now know that the Big Bang created all the mass of the universe as it expanded.



Even Lemaître did not think that a god caused the creation of the universe. He wrote, "As far as I can see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God."



Albert Einstein at most believed in a deistic god, not the Christian god Yahweh. Also, what he believed has no relevance on whether Yahweh actually exists.



A handwritten letter by Einstein was recently sold. In it he wrote,

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

- Einstein

Answer 4

Science requires honesty. Too often, religion demands the opposite. As an example, the religious use altered quotes to support the untenable stack of lies (doctrines) to which they dedicate themselves. The partial quote, inappropriately capitalized, is from a longer sentence that expresses the metaphorical nature:

"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."



The second half is from a different work, and like the first, robbed of its context by falsely starting it mid-sentence:

"If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."



Towards the end of his life, Einstein plainly refuted such dishonest misrepresentations of his beliefs:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."



Any religion that relies upon such dishonesty is incompatible with science, the systematic analysis of facts. Thank you for demonstrating behavior that supports the opinion of PZ Myers.

Answer 5

Let's look at that Einstein quote, shall we.



"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."



Note that it consists of _humble admiration_. Not adoration, devotion, or especially the following of some crazy precepts about what one should or shouldn't do,



For the record, the Big Bang does not have any hole in it. The dark matter is required to account for the spinning motion of galaxies *right now*. The dark energy is required to account for the motion of galaxies *overall*, relative to one another, in the presence of the conjectured dark matter.



Reading a bit more science, and understanding a little more, will probably avoid you making a fool of yourself again.



The christian god can easily be dismissed logically, because of the contradictions and mutual incompatibility in what are supposed to be his essential attributes.



Most of the famous scientists you mention lived at a time where being an atheist would be enough to be burned at the stake under that accusation of being an heretic.

Answer 6

Einstein certainly didn't believe in your Christian God and the rest were before anyone even knew about evolution. I suppose I would have even believed in a magical sky daddy had I been born in a much more ignorant time. Why didn't you mention that Christians locked up the first real scientist (Galileo) for the last decade of his life, due to their utter ignorance of how the solar system worked. They would have killed Galileo had he not recanted "the TRUTH".



Why don't you mention any TOP scientists of today, now that evolution has been brought to light? Yeah, that's right, 95% of them don't believe in your imaginary friend. The scientists of today that still believe in ancient fairy tales are the nobodies that no one has ever heard about.



Edit: You are preaching to the choir, because atheists know that believers started science. Duh, everyone was a believer in ignorant times. It's to bad that Christianity stifled scientific progression for centuries and they continue today with things that could help people, like stem cell research.

Answer 7

No, it's not.

There is a common trend today for children, both physical and mental, to try and use words and phrases they do not understand.

Science, scientific, evolution, and theory are the leading contenders right now.



If people would put even minimal effort into learning before speaking, things would be much better in the world.

Answer 8

When will BAD Christians realise that making false claims and deliberately lying disgraces God and all Christians?!



Only 7 percent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. Whilst only 3.3 percent believed in God in the UK’s Royal Society.



England's Archbishop of Canterbury said last week that Christianity is now known for it's hatreds and not about god!

Answer 9

So, to be sparkling, in technological know-how you do no longer anticipate that something is actual and you do not have preconceived notions which you attempt to instruct are actual. What you do do, is to make a hypothesis, try it and based on the information the two proceed to purpose it or reject it. as quickly as you have built up adequate information you place up your findings to verify evaluate and then no remember if that's revealed, any form of alternative scientists with try it at each threat they get. assessment this with a have faith in some style of god, which assumes that a god or gods exists and has preconceived notions approximately what that god (or gods) is to boot as a preconceived thought approximately how the universe formed and how existence got here to be. at the same time as technological know-how seems in any respect the info and reaches a tentative end, faith tries to extra healthful the info to what it already considers actual and rejects something that contradicts its assumptions and preconceived ideals. So, on condition that maximum, if no longer all, atheist might admit that there became a god if there became info to point that one existed and that for the period of spite of the info faith nevertheless tries to justify its preconceived ideals, i might say that atheism is plenty extra consistent with technological know-how than any faith. Edit: As for the version between "agnostic" and "atheist", it somewhat does not remember. as quickly as we seem on the info, there's no reason to remotely suspect that any god/gods that human beings have believed in could exist and that's painfully sparkling that the Abrahamic gods (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) are the least probably to be real. Edit to pass slightly further, "agnostic" has traditionally meant one that believed that understanding no remember if or no longer a god or gods exists is impossible. that's critically diverse than the sought after utilization of being uncertain if a god/gods exist.

Answer 10

There may be scientists that believe in a higher power. But I bet most of them will agree christianity is Bullsh*t

Answer 11

Science starts with evidence.



It doesn't take something we don't understand and jump to an asinine conclusion unsupported by any evidence at all.



So yes it is.

Answer 12

Blah, blah, blah. Don't attack the validity of the statement, just appeal to popular opinion.



You're not doing arguments right (or science).

Answer 13

It would help to know the definition of "atheism".



But I suppose you enjoy making a fool of yourself on the internet.

Answer 14

Empirical science is far more supportive of God and Creation than any of the current materialistic explanations for origins or the diversity of life observed on the planet.

Answer 15

No its mostly about self

Answer 16

I'm not your editor. I'm not reading your novel you pasted here. If you want me to read it, you need to pay me.