# Atheism Is Not Scientific **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 17, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962 "2014-06-17T04:31:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Not\_Freddy\_Fender](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ebca7d/32.png) [@Not\_Freddy\_Fender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_Freddy_Fender)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/1 "2014-06-17T04:31:56Z")
Most skeptics claim they’re atheists. They do this because they “see no evidence” for the existence of God. And yet, they never disclose what exactly what they would consider to be “evidence” for the existence of God. Is it walking on water? Elimination of all pain and suffering in the world? Allowing everyone to live forever? Seriously, I would like to know exactly what skeptics would consider to be evidence for God. Theism says God DOES exist. Atheism says God DOES NOT exist. And yet, neither view is Scientific in any sense of the word. The only scientific disposition concerning God is Agnosticism: “I don’t know.” In order to say something exists, you must provide evidence to that end. Likewise, in order to say something does not exist, you must know the conditions or circumstances that would have to be in place for that phenomenon to exist and then be able to show — scientifically — how or why such circumstances cannot or do not exist. But no Atheist is ever able to demonstrate this. They simply “know”. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” As an analogy, consider Love. Most people, including skeptics, claim they “love” somebody. Their spouse, their significant other, their friends, their relatives, their family. But they cannot prove their love by the scientific method. They claim love is simply an emotional response common to most people. That is not scientific, that is anecdotal. It is purely subjective which is not scientific in any sense of the word. I don’t doubt you do love your spouse/friends/family. But if you claim to adhere to the scientific method, how can you scientifically say you love anyone? Logic has nothing to do with Passion. You may answer that “love” and other emotions are nothing more than chemical reactions within your brain. But such a disposition is The Matrix: how do you define reality? If you take it to that level, then EVERY experience/emotion/thought could in fact be being fed to you by some external mechanism which is convincing you of a reality that is in fact not real. So why do so many skeptics agree with atheism if it isn’t really scientific? ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/2 "2014-06-17T04:40:38Z")
It’s not up to atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist; it’s up to theists to prove that God does exist. Do you also want me to prove that invisible pink unicorns (for example) don’t exist? Of course not because the default logic is that they don’t. The default logic regarding an invisible sky God is that he doesn’t exist until proof arrives that he does exist. So far, in the entirety of human civilization, we have absolutely no proof. And if He did exist, He’s a bit of an asshole how He’s treated us all. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/3 "2014-06-17T04:56:15Z")
I don’t believe in God for the same reason the OP doesn’t believe in Zeus. The difference between us is I’m consistent; I don’t have evidence of any supernatural being so I don’t believe in any of them. Can the OP explain why he believes in God and doesn’t believe in Zeus? ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/4 "2014-06-17T04:56:39Z")
This will not end well. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/5 "2014-06-17T04:57:16Z")
The nonexistence of God/gods is the null hypothesis. It is no more unscientific to say there is no god than it is to say there is no Santa Claus. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/6 "2014-06-17T05:07:38Z")
> [@RadicalPi](#): > > This will not end well. Nah, nobody’s ever actually listening to the other side in these “debates,” so there’s no harm forthcoming. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/7 "2014-06-17T05:10:49Z")
Hmm… looks like my watch is running slow. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/8 "2014-06-17T05:15:00Z")
Are you an equal opportunity agnostic towards things like elves, goblins, and the orbiting teapot, or is it mostly just for god? > [@Not\_Freddy\_Fender](#): > > The only scientific disposition concerning God is Agnosticism: “I don’t know.” That’s not a null hypothesis. > [@](#): > > As an analogy, consider Love. > Most people, including skeptics, claim they “love” somebody. > Their spouse, their significant other, their friends, their relatives, their family. > But they cannot prove their love by the scientific method. > They claim love is simply an emotional response common to most people. > That is not scientific, that is anecdotal. > It is purely subjective which is not scientific in any sense of the word. Are you an old school behaviorist? I don’t think there’s many of those around anymore. You can have objective facts about the subjective. There are scientists who investigate love, depression, and so on. They are realized in the human brain. We might be living in a simulation, though there’s no evidence for it, just like there’s no evidence for god. We might also be living on the back of a giant pregnant space turtle. Perhaps she’s god. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/9 "2014-06-17T05:16:38Z")
The OP is using false equivalence. And nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![sich\_hinaufwinden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@sich\_hinaufwinden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sich_hinaufwinden)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/10 "2014-06-17T05:19:40Z")
> [@RadicalPi](#): > > This will not end well. But maybe it can end hunger? /or lower my light bill? //or trim the hedges? ///or maybe spackle the den? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/11 "2014-06-17T05:25:53Z")
The scientific method isn’t why I’m an atheist. It’s why I’m not a theist. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/12 "2014-06-17T05:37:42Z")
Atheists may act like they think there is no good but if you ask any of them to answer in a calm manner most of them will tell you that what they actually mean is, there is no evidence for god so your whole criticism is misguided… ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/13 "2014-06-17T05:46:48Z")
Suppose someone were to tell you that the next time you cross a bridge, it _will_ collapse, killing you. When you as them how they know, they just tell you that you can’t prove that it won’t. Are you going to live your life as though what they said is true? ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/14 "2014-06-17T06:00:34Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Atheists may act like they think there is no good > but if you ask any of them to answer in a calm manner > most of them will tell you that what they actually mean is, there is no evidence for god > so your whole criticism is misguided… True, but if we were at the horse races and if there was a horse named “There Ain’t no freaking God”, I’d bet the farm on that damn horse. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/15 "2014-06-17T06:02:01Z")
I totally agree. Atheism is not scientific. Nor is theism. Questions of faith in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God (or Gods) fall outside the realm of science. Science provides very good evidence for how things work. It does not provide a fundamental reason why things work the way they do. Theism provides no evidence for how things work. It does however purport to provide a reason why things work the way they do. Given the choice between two imperfect 'isms, I’ll go with science. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/16 "2014-06-17T06:03:50Z")
We need a better stock answer to these post and run religious posts. We should start explaining that the definition of Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, which means not actively choosing to believe something, which includes what most people considers wrongly that it can only be called agnosticism, which is the _“I don’t know”_ position. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/17 "2014-06-17T06:18:37Z")
Isn’t a fair statement to say that the concept of God is paradoxical and therefore cannot exist? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/18 "2014-06-17T06:26:42Z")
> [@Not\_Freddy\_Fender](#): > > As an analogy, consider Love. Sorry, but your problem there is that we can observe evidence of love. If we have doubts, we can craftily say or do things to elicit a reaction that we can identify as consistent with what we expect when love is present. It is, in fact, observable. The problem with “god” is, at the very least, trinitarian: [ol] [li]there must be some kind of compelling evidence that a universal (or even localized) superbeing exists[/li][li]there must be some explicable mechanism by which the putative superbeing is somehow relevant to our existence (you absolutely have to defeat the apatheists)[/li][li]having cleared those two bars, you now have to _prove_ that this evidence points to your specific deity[/li][/ol] So far, it is fairy tales and magic tricks. Miracles are not even evidence, if you look at the enormous numbers involved, miracles are actually inevitable. So get cracking. What ya got? ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/19 "2014-06-17T06:42:05Z")
I withhold my reply until I see some evidence this is anything more than a drive-by posting. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/20 "2014-06-17T06:43:56Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > It’s not up to atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist; it’s up to theists to prove that God does exist. > > Do you also want me to prove that invisible pink unicorns (for example) don’t exist? Of course not because the default logic is that they don’t. The default logic regarding an invisible sky God is that he doesn’t exist until proof arrives that he does exist. So far, in the entirety of human civilization, we have absolutely no proof. And if He did exist, He’s a bit of an asshole how He’s treated us all. The person who is making the assertion has the burden of proof. Agnostics are the only ones who logically win this argument by default because they don’t know. Philosophically theists and atheists have the same problem of carrying the burden of proof. Atheist arguers would be well advised to shift from a mere philosophical argument to a field of scientific basis to get a leg up among educated people, but a good rhetorician will spot this as question begging. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=2)