# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/101 "2014-06-17T22:20:51Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Well, omnipotence is always less plausible than “very powerful but not omnipotent,” no matter _how_ powerful an entity has demonstrated itself to be. Hence, induction never licenses us to conclude the being is omnipotent. Instead it licenses us to conclude that it’s very powerful. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > You’ve convinced me. > [@Frylock](#): > > I… > > Is this… > > Are you… > > I can’t tell if you’re serious! :eek:🙂 > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Totally serious. I agree with your point. I almost wish you hadn’t been convinced, and were willing to go a few more rounds on this point, but that’s just me being selfish. I’m totally out of my depth here, intellectually, but you’re both being so cogent, lucid and _intelligible_, that just reading it makes me feel smarter. I would like to explore this bit, however, and I hope I’m articulate enough to adequately communicate my cavil: > [@Frylock](#): > > Well, omnipotence is always less plausible than “very powerful but not omnipotent,” no matter _how_ powerful an entity has demonstrated itself to be. Hence, induction never licenses us to conclude the being is omnipotent. Instead it licenses us to conclude that it’s very powerful. Doesn’t the validity of this argument rest on the notion that the observer doing the logical analysis is NOT already immersed in a culture where omnipotence is accepted as an attribute of godhood, as a matter of course? ISTM that one COULD deliberately choose to discard all frontloaded assumptions, but one wold need to reliably identify them all first, no? ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/102 "2014-06-17T22:34:47Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Nah, agnosticism is just a form of theistic special pleading. It treats the question of God’s existence as somehow different from any other question, requiring a different standard of proof. “You can’t be CERTAIN God doesn’t exist!” the agnostic claims. Well, yeah. I’m not CERTAIN that the sun rose this morning. Every bit of evidence I have suggests that it did, but there are many ways that evidence could be faked or misinterpreted. I believe that the sun rose because that that’s the best fit for the evidence I have, and I don’t believe that God exists for the same reason. > > Should I go around worrying that maybe my provisional understanding of the sun is incorrect? Of course not. That would be silly. I just go with the best explanation and get on with life. So why make a big deal out of your similar lack of absolute proof for the non-existence of God? You should just go with the best explanation for your evidence and get on with your life. > > In fact, agnosticism is profoundly unscientific because it rests upon faulty epistemological assumptions that science rejects. Scientists never PROVE anything. Instead they build explanatory models that correlate with the data at hand and modify those models if the data changes. Since there is no evidence for God, the only scientific answer is to say that God doesn’t exist until such evidence is forthcoming. The only reason agnosticism is a thing is so people can appear to be reasonable without giving up theism entirely. I’ve always felt this way and yet have never been able to articulate quite this well. Great job **Hamster**! ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/103 "2014-06-17T22:45:58Z")
> [@Not\_Freddy\_Fender](#): > > 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. . . . Yawn. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/104 "2014-06-17T22:48:17Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Semantically, though, one cannot argue that any god does not exist. Arthur Pendragon exists, as do Guildenstern, Candide, Queequeg, Gandalf and Yoda. Literal physical form is not a requirement for existence. Or even, in fact, potence. Zatoichi, Scrooge, and Heracles have almost certainly informed some individuals’ decisions, as have Jesus, Elisha and Yowee. The question, of course, is whether God exists in the sense you and I exist, not in the sense a fictional or legendary character exists. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/105 "2014-06-17T22:51:57Z")
Of all the arguments against the existence of God, I think that pointing out the logical inconsistencies in an extreme definition of “omnipotent” are among the weaker… because you can go on and on and talk about “can God make a boulder so heavy God can’t lift it” and so forth, but at the end of the day, the believer can just say “ok, God is omnipotent for all practical purposes” or something, and really that fits fine with every real conception of God that anyone actually believes in. People believe that God created that universe, that doesn’t mean that they also must think he could create something that was a triangle with 4 sides, or what have you. I think the best argument against God is just the Occam’s razor/null hypothesis issue. Could a universe exist in which a being that was recognizable as being similar to the Christian God existed? Well, I dunno, that comes down to a whole bunch of subtle distinctions about how Good is Good and so forth. But who cares, because there’s zero evidence that even if such a universe COULD exist it’s the one we live in. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Mondegreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/91b2a8/32.png) [@Lord\_Mondegreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Mondegreen)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/106 "2014-06-17T22:55:55Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > The OP may be correct, in that **atheism is just as fundamentally faith-based as theism**. \ (my bolding) No it isn’t. Lacking a belief in something due to a lack of evidence for it cannot in any way be classified as “faith-based.” > [@Bozuit](#): > > And give your return key a fucking rest. At least it makes a change from the usual wall of unpunctuated text. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/107 "2014-06-17T22:59:40Z")
> [@Kenm](#): > > Yawn. Its a prosthelytic device… ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/108 "2014-06-17T23:13:33Z")
> [@Lord\_Mondegreen](#): > > (my bolding) > No it isn’t. Lacking a belief in something due to a lack of evidence for it cannot in any way be classified as “faith-based.” Lack of belief is not the same as belief in non-existence. You can’t prove a negative – there may be invisible green unicorns swimming in my breakfast cereal every morning, but how could I disprove it? Especially if they’re made of neutrinos. Also, how do we define “God” in this debate? [Deism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) posits that God does exist, but all he/she did was create the world and then left it to its own devices. If that’s the case, then the lack of God’s evidence (since the Big Bang, at least) is perfectly in line with that hypothesis. Yet it would be foolish to presume that Deism MUST be true, based on that correlation. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/109 "2014-06-18T00:03:54Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Well, I see that SDMB never changes. Didn’t we have this discussion in 2000, then again in 2002, then again in…? You missed the one in 2001. And the other one in 2001. And there were probably more in 2000 and 2002. I have an idea for fighting these threads: The rest of us hold off our snark and we let the philosophers argue endlessly until the OP goes blind staring at walls of text with hardly a carriage return in sight that he has no hope of understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/110 "2014-06-18T00:22:59Z")
We still haven’t even gotten a satisfactory answer to the question of whether or not Jesus could microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/111 "2014-06-18T00:36:25Z")
What does God need with a microwave? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/112 "2014-06-18T00:39:42Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > What does God need with a microwave? It’s faster. Also, to prove and/or demonstrate hypos. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/113 "2014-06-18T00:43:31Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > What does God need with a microwave? It would lack a turntable, yet still heat evenly. Cuz, god. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/114 "2014-06-18T00:50:06Z")
Since God is a non-corporeal being, but manifested Jesus to interact with us, one could argue that God could in fact create a boulder so heavy that his physical manifestation could not lift it. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/115 "2014-06-18T00:52:25Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Since God is a non-corporeal being, but manifested Jesus to interact with us, one could argue that God could in fact create a boulder so heavy that his physical manifestation could not lift it. But would he be capable of creating a boulder so heavy that he couldn’t create any physical manifestation capable of lifting it? ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/116 "2014-06-18T01:02:28Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > What does God need with a microwave? it’s a philosophical testbed. Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/117 "2014-06-18T01:24:53Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Doesn’t the validity of this argument rest on the notion that the observer doing the logical analysis is NOT already immersed in a culture where omnipotence is accepted as an attribute of godhood, as a matter of course? When I used terms like “probable” and “plausible” I meant them to refer to an objective standard–certain pieces of evidence really do make certain things more probable, regardless of whether the person the evidence is presented to thinks so or not. For example, if I show you ten cards, and nine of them are spades while the other one is a diamond, and then you shuffle the cards and I draw one, it doesn’t matter whether I or you think I’m probably holding a spade now or not–what we saw just _does_ make it more probable that I’m holding a spade now. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/118 "2014-06-18T01:25:27Z")
He’d probably be confused and frightened by the machine, not to mentionn the cuisine from a land not discovered in his time. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/119 "2014-06-18T01:41:44Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Since God is a non-corporeal being, but manifested Jesus to interact with us, one could argue that God could in fact create a boulder so heavy that his physical manifestation could not lift it. Three nails. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962/120 "2014-06-18T03:00:24Z")
> [@B.Serum](#): > > I withhold my reply until I see some evidence this is anything more than a drive-by posting. Seconded. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-not-scientific/690962.md?page=7)