3 ms·

There are people who call themselves atheists who define atheism as carefully as you want them to. It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsiste

There are people who call themselves atheists who define atheism as carefully as you want them to. It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." We're debating how many people use a term the way you want them to, and how many people use a term the way I want them to. Hence: pedantics. EDIT: Try this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y

gamblor956 8y ago
It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Ergo, atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method in the same way that theism is inconsistent with the scientific method. This is not to say that agnosticism is consistent with the scientific method, since agnostics merely posit that they don't know whether or not God exists. Some couch it in language like "there's no evidence" but not all agnostics base their skepticism on a reason consistent with the scientific method. TLDR: Theists believe "God." Atheists believe "no God." Agnostics don't have a belief either way. This is not pedantry, it's a fundamental difference in belief systems.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is a God. “Strong” or “hard" atheism is the belief that there is no God. (Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or not of God is either unknown or unknowable, it is, in either form, compatible with theism, atheism, and strong atheism, since belief in a position is not equivalent to belief that that belief is knowledge or that the subject of that belief is knowable.) > It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Its the absence of belief in a thing in which belief cannot be justified by science, it is not merely compatible with science but the only position possible within a scientific framework. Strong atheism is also compatible with science. (As are both forms of agnosticism.) Assuming God was a testable hypothesis (which it is, to all analysis to date, not even in principle), a non-contingent atheism—a nonbelief or negative belief in God immune to review based on subsequent evidence—would be inconsistent with science, but then that's an apparently counterfactual assumption and not even clearly a common form of atheism.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  In the contexts I care about, this absolutely is pedantry. If I as a layman make the assertion, "I am an atheist," and a perfect scientist asks you to translate my statement into an expression compatible with the scientific method, that he could understand, you could do it. Here, let me try: "VikingCoder is not convinced there is evidence that proves the existence of a being which created the universe." Feel free to make your own translation, if you are dissatisfied with mine. And if it turns out that you do not believe there's any difference between the scientifically literate explanation for agnosticism and atheism, THAT'S FINE BY ME. I believe there is a scientifically literate explanation for atheism which differs from the scientifically literate explanation for agnosticism. Because we're humans. We are allowed to express opinions. That doesn't mean we have abandoned the scientific method. I'm allowed to have thought, "I believe we will find the Higgs boson." I'm allowed to think, "I believe I will never be convinced of the existence of God." > It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. My atheism absolutely could be disproven by observation. I'd be delighted to go in to listing observations that would disprove my atheism, if you care. (I think you probably shouldn't have used "or observation" in that statement, if you wanted to be harder on me.)

gamblor956 8y ago

It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Ergo, atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method in the same way that theism is inconsistent with the scientific method. This is not to say that agnosticism is consistent with the scientific method, since agnostics merely posit that they don't know whether or not God exists. Some couch it in language like "there's no evidence" but not all agnostics base their skepticism on a reason consistent with the scientific method. TLDR: Theists believe "God." Atheists believe "no God." Agnostics don't have a belief either way. This is not pedantry, it's a fundamental difference in belief systems.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is a God. “Strong” or “hard" atheism is the belief that there is no God. (Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or not of God is either unknown or unknowable, it is, in either form, compatible with theism, atheism, and strong atheism, since belief in a position is not equivalent to belief that that belief is knowledge or that the subject of that belief is knowable.) > It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Its the absence of belief in a thing in which belief cannot be justified by science, it is not merely compatible with science but the only position possible within a scientific framework. Strong atheism is also compatible with science. (As are both forms of agnosticism.) Assuming God was a testable hypothesis (which it is, to all analysis to date, not even in principle), a non-contingent atheism—a nonbelief or negative belief in God immune to review based on subsequent evidence—would be inconsistent with science, but then that's an apparently counterfactual assumption and not even clearly a common form of atheism.
VikingCoder 8y ago
In the contexts I care about, this absolutely is pedantry. If I as a layman make the assertion, "I am an atheist," and a perfect scientist asks you to translate my statement into an expression compatible with the scientific method, that he could understand, you could do it. Here, let me try: "VikingCoder is not convinced there is evidence that proves the existence of a being which created the universe." Feel free to make your own translation, if you are dissatisfied with mine. And if it turns out that you do not believe there's any difference between the scientifically literate explanation for agnosticism and atheism, THAT'S FINE BY ME. I believe there is a scientifically literate explanation for atheism which differs from the scientifically literate explanation for agnosticism. Because we're humans. We are allowed to express opinions. That doesn't mean we have abandoned the scientific method. I'm allowed to have thought, "I believe we will find the Higgs boson." I'm allowed to think, "I believe I will never be convinced of the existence of God." > It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. My atheism absolutely could be disproven by observation. I'd be delighted to go in to listing observations that would disprove my atheism, if you care. (I think you probably shouldn't have used "or observation" in that statement, if you wanted to be harder on me.)