Just read a piece on a scientist that had been awarded a big award, that said atheism could not follow the method of science....or something...then went on to say this institute had spent some big money to study "non-believers", .....trying to find things that believers, and non-believers had in common, to prove, or dis-prove, their point......any thoughts.....think it was a "templeton" institute...or something like that
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Sounds like good money wasted to me.
Jolanta
Level 9
Mar 21, 2019
1
Me also. Thank you
I tend to be rather dismissive of "scientists" who claim religious beliefs.
If they actually believe in gods or religion, I'm going to find anything they
say to be suspect.
I generally do not trust people who believe in delusions.
KKGator
Level 9
Mar 21, 2019
1
Same here....thank you
I'm atheist because of science. I experienced too much cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile science with things in the Christian Bible and in the end I had to choose or live in despair. It's a shame people get paid off to promote this kind of stuff. I saw the Ken ham and bill Nye debate where Ken showed an astronomer saying "there's nothing in astronomy that conflicts with the Bible". I later looked that guy up and couldn't find anything he had written on the matter. I'd like to see him reconcile distant starlight and earth. He'd probably say something like "god stretched the light out so we would be fooled"?
Snake91
Level 4
Mar 21, 2019
1
Thank you for your reply
Strictly speaking, the agnostic argument is the most "correct", because no one knows for sure if a supreme being does or does not exist therefore it is not scientific to be either because neither position is scientific.
However, being agnostic has very little pragmatic merit, because admitting that you don't know and in fact can't know implies you lack motivation to gain societal benefits from either belief.
Happy_Killbot
Level 7
Mar 21, 2019
2
I know I don't believe, therefore, I am atheist...nothing "incorrect" about that...thank you for a thoughtful reply
I saw that piece, it was a straw man extravaganza. From what I've heard the Templeton Institute awards people and organizations big money for saying nice things about religion.
BooksCatsEtc
Level 4
Mar 21, 2019
4
@BookCatsEtc: my take exactlly ...thank you for your reply
Without reading the article,it sounds like a bunch of miss labeling and poor definitions. I’m an atheist because of the scientific method. And the templeton institute? What a bunch of muppets.
Charl5
Level 5
Mar 21, 2019
1
Thanks for your reply
Things we have in common:
a. We are alive
b. We will die
c. We pay taxes
d. We like to think we are better
Anything else is irrelevant. No need to spend money or write a paper
IamNobody
Level 8
Mar 21, 2019
1
Thank you
I don't believe atheism will ever be proven correct since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of an unfalsifiable god. On the other hand, I don't believe a theist will ever be proven correct since I don't believe god(s) exist. So I guess they have that in common. Neither side will prove their case.
Sandman07
Level 5
Mar 21, 2019
1
Thank you
Exactly, a possibility but not a probability. No evidence. Any evidence there is has been shown to be cognitive, not in the material world outside of our human heads and social psychology.
It is not a stretch to prove the non-existence of many things why not an entity that works through magic and supernaturalism?
@JackPedigo, Not sure what you mean. Are you saying there is no such thing as unfalsifiable gods?
@Sandman07 Sometimes double negatives can be so confusing. People say you can't dis-prove something you can't prove exists. In other words you cannot prove a god doesn't exist. I say you can in that there are lots of things we know don't exist. The burden of proof should be on those making the claim and the more radical the claim the more need for proof.
@JackPedigo Yes I agree with you. Those making a claim have the burden of proof. But I disagree with you on our ability to prove a god doesn’t exist. I don’t see how it is possible. Of course I’m referring to an unfalsifiable god.
By the way, just to be clear, I do not believe any gods exist, I just can’t prove that they don’t. I wish I could so we could put this whole discussion to bed.
@Sandman07 It might be a good brain exercise to think of some things that can't be true ( we hear some examples all the time from the WH ). One could say there is a planet somewhere that is made of green cheese. Until we've searched every planet one could say we haven't proven that one doesn't exist.
@JackPedigo It is easy to prove many of the things coming out of the WH are false. We have access to evidence to show the validity of statements. But there are things, like a planet made out of green cheese somewhere in the universe, which would be impossible to disprove. We can believe that it isn’t true and would most probably be correct, but we can never be 100 percent certain.
My main concern is burden of proof. I believe we should keep it in the theist’s court where it belongs. If atheists claim there are no gods, than we also assume a burden of proof.
@Sandman07 To me a big part of the proof is simple reason, philosophy and science showing everything has a reason and there is no such thing as magic or supernaturalism.
Yes, I saw that article also a few days ago. As you can imagine, the Catholics LOVE it...the idea that religion and science are 'complementary' is part of the appeal to them. [catholicnews.com]
mojo5501
Level 7
Mar 21, 2019
2
What a load of bollocks . Similar to that ultimate oxymoron "Christian science". One of their beliefs is that illness can be cured by prayer alone. Not only nonsensical but harmful.
@mojo5501: True thanks for your reply
@Moravian It appears to me that a physicist must have a lot of time to wonder about the meaning of life....and won't admit that spirituality is simply a way we humans attempt to grasp at meaning beyond the grave. I know that people find solace in their faith but for a scientist to openly say that atheists are somehow 'arrogant' or 'angry' is just ridiculous. And did you see the prize this man was awarded? ("The prize includes a cash award of more than $1.4 million. A formal award ceremony is scheduled May 29 in New York." ) Nice, right?
@Moravian my own thoughts....thank you
Well if science ever proves a god in some form exists then his statement would be true. Since science hasn't...
1of5
Level 8
Mar 21, 2019
1
The term 'religious agnostic' troubles me for some reason. Like: Pick a Side!
@1of5 My take also.....thanks for your reply
@1of5 Yes, as the Catholic term seems appropriate here: "ecumenical". defined as "interdenominational initiative that encourages greater cooperation among Christians and their churches" (Wikipedia). As in interfaith dialogue applied to science and religion. This introduces the idea that unity is required and necessary in the first place! I see religion and science at two ends of a spectrum and certainly not two overlapping circles like this physicist does. But I suppose that's why HE won an award...ha ha.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.