/sci/ - Science & Math

Evidence of the existence of a god would be nice.

>>3031701
That's being a bit demanding.

atheists seem to believe they can prove there is no God through science, which makes no sense. i guess its just a fad to be an atheist now.

>>3031711
That's the thing with extraordinary claims.

Atheism is trivially falsifiable: Just provide evidence for a God. It is the theistic position that cannot be falsified, since a theist can always retreat to the deist position and declare his views immune to criticism or proof.

>Sound theories have to be falsifiable

Then those theories aren't sound...

>>3031712
>i guess its just a fad to be an atheist now.

>>3031692
There is none
∴ Atheism is false
∴ God exists
Q.E.D. BITCHES

>>3031727

>>3031719

so can an atheist.

>>3031719
So can aatheism (the belief there isn't no god)

>>3031751
>>3031738
No they can't. And atheism isn't belief in anything, it's a lack of belief. if there's sufficient evidence for God and atheist would have no choice but to accept it (belief doesn't enter into it)

Atheism is stupid. No one can know whether god doesn't exist. That's why I am agnostic.

No, scientific theories have to be falsifiable. Religion is not science.

>>3031751
The belief that there isn't no god would be theism.

>>3031712

It's not like I ever decided to be an atheist, just like Nietzsche:

"Ich kenne den Atheismus durchaus nicht als Ergebnis, noch weniger als Ereignis: Er versteht sich bei mir aus Instinkt."

>>3031766
aatheism isn't belief in anything, it's a lack of belief. if there's sufficient evidence for (not God) and aatheist would have no choice but to accept it (belief doesn't enter into it)

aatheism ftw

>>3031774
>scientific theories have to be falsifiable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

I'm going to go with Sam Harris on this one. The word atheist shouldn't even exist. Technically all sane athiests are agnostics. The arguments that they all make are "There is no evidence for God, the world works fine without God, the only arguments you can make for God that are not refutable by empirical evidence have him as existing outside and not interacting in any discernable or consistent way with the cosmos as everything else we have ever observed, therefore we conclude that God is unlikely and SPECIFIC Gods as described in specific books are legends are near-impossible."

The easy way to disprove atheism as described above and make me a theist is to provide solid repeatable evidence of God or the supernatural.

>>3031692
evolution is falsifiable?

>>3031798
Of course it is.

>>3031798
Find a bunny in the cambrian.

>>3031798

Sure. Just provide me an example of some creature that sprung full grown from something completely different with no slow changes over time.

Or find a bunny in the Cambrian, but that could be argued to be the result of time travel.

>>3031775
Theism is positive belief in god
Aatheism is not believing in (not god)
There is a difference

>>3031785
I've worked in an observational science for many years and I've never operated on anything but falsifiability.

What is your point?

>>3031817
There's no such thing as aatheism. That would just be the lack of belief in atheism, which is a lack of theism.

>>3031738

An atheist can retreat to a position of deism? Do you even know what words mean?

>>3031838

Oh, so we are operating under the assumption that words have meanings?

(A penny to anyone who recognizes that quote)

>>3031792

>>3031831
Your just an aaatheist

>>3031846
Hitchhikers

>>3031856

Nope, try again.

>>3031861
It's from Hitchhikers bro

>>3031863

Well, that wasn't where I was quoting it from. Where in Hitchikers is it?

>>3031867
When the guy talks to the robot

>>3031846

Enjoy talking to yourself.

>>3031870

...

I'm being trolled, aren't I?

>>3031879
No, bro, when he went to the deserted planet and talked to the robot. Did you even read hitchhikers??

>>3031846
Haruhi?

>>3031881

There are about 8 guys to talk to one of 16 robots any any one time throughout that book. One of the main characters is a robot who is older than the universe a few times over.

PS: The answer I was looking for was Anathem by Neil Stephenson, I guess I picked too common a quote.

>>3031784
wtf is an aatheist?

Also, you really are an idiot.

NEW QUESTION.
THREAD HIJACK

Scientific theories need to be falsifiable.
Should personal beliefs be falsifiable?
IE should personal beliefs be held to the same standards as scientific fact?

Atheism is not a belief. It's the lack of belief in God. You are not required to prove a negative.

>>3031905
AAtheism is not a belief. It's the lack of belief in (not God). You are not required to prove a negative.

>>3031895

No. Just as reason alone is insufficient to understand the world, so empiricism alone is insufficient to make sense of your personal experiences.

>>3031909
This response could not be more retarded. Please kill go yourself now.

>>3031918

seconded

>>3031895
Only if personal beliefs than go onto influence societal decisions

>>3031909

An Aatheist would be someone opposed to atheism. Having seen many youtube atheists, I would consider myself to be both an atheist and an aatheist.

That said, stop making up words you silly goose.

>>3031917

Psuedo OP here

That makes sense

But, does that apply to values, and preferences too? Thats what I was thinking when I said beliefs.

>>3031932
nanananananabatman

>>3031928

Anananananatheist

>>3031930

Sure, why not? It /might/ be possible to empirically prove the validity of your favorite ice cream flavor, or your sexual orientation, but why would anyone bother?

>>3031938

Batman (Batman)
Abatman (Someone who is not Batman)
Anabatman (someone who is not Abatman)

>>3031941
I agree. Im glad to hear something so sensible on /sci/ and not some Sam Harris/Ayn Rand non-sense about brain scanning to quantify likes and dislikes.

>>3031928

The word atheist was made in the same way, someone just stuck an a in front of theist

Aatheist is a word christians use to combat the false dichotomy that theism needs proof while atheism does not by making them both negative statements . I did not make it up.
>>3031928

>>3032063

Except aatheist doesn't mean what you are claiming it means. An aatheist is someone opposed to atheism, not someone who denies the non-existence of God: We already have a word fo them, and it begins with "theis-".

>>3032063
>false dichotomy that theism needs proof while atheism does not
A false dichotomy is a illogical division of a whole into two halves. I don't think that's what you meant.

>>3032110
*an

atheism is not a belief asshole

>>3032089
>An aatheist is someone opposed to atheism
Technically, that would be an anti-atheist.

I'm an Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagnostic Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatheist.

>>3032123

A- is the Greek equivalent of Latin anti-. Since Theos is a Greek word, anti would be the wrong prefix.

>>3032110
As in people illogical separate "belief there is a god" and " belief there is no god" into positive and negative with demands of evidence, when in reality you can phrase them both as positive or negative

Thus creating a false dichotomy

>>3032141
>Since Theos is a Greek word, anti would be the wrong prefix.
We're deriving a term from "Atheism", not from its etymologic origin, and since Anti-Theism already exists as well, the most plausible moniker for people opposed to Atheism would be Anti-Atheists.

>>3032144
That's still not a false dichotomy, because the distinction between a positive and a negative belief is perfectly justified, whether their respective burdens of proof are fairly/evenly shared or not. The dichotomy itself is not false.

ITT: Nobody can agree on semantics.

Just call yourself non-religious and be done with the puerile word games.

The word "atheism" actually comes from the Greek atheos (godless), rather than prefixing an a to the word "theist" AFAIK.

I think the OP's question regarding evidence for god's existence is more interesting than this discussion though. I started thinking about that recently, and I think my position has shifted from "I have no knowledge about god's existence" to "there can be no knowledge about god's existence".

The sort of observation that would make the god idea plausible seems to be more easily explained by personal insanity.