Is mainstream science atheistic?

Posted by: reece

Comments would be great.

  • Yes.

  • No.

56% 18 votes
44% 14 votes
  • Science has lead and is still leading to a lack of god/gods.

    Posted by: reece
  • By definition, science cannot deal with the supernatural, which includes deities, magic, etc., therefore, science cannot state the existence of a god. However, in my opinion, the many theories, that are taught in textbooks without the title, theory (such as the Big Bang THEORY), go completely against what many religions claim as being the way the world was made. Therefore, science is atheistic.

  • at least where I live

  • The definitive nature of science contradicts something that exists and operates outside the laws of nature. To be with a deity is to be without science. A deity is not a deity if it is confined by the laws of nature.

  • It does not fully deny or accept God.

  • Mainstream science does not need God, but that does not mean that scientists do not need God.

    Posted by: 18Karl
  • Mainstream science is neither theistic nor atheistic. It's neutral.

  • Proper science is for the truth, regardless of what that may be. Although science disagrees with, or arguably disproves, some religions, that doesn't make it atheistic. Thus far, there is not sufficient evidence to say that there is no God or gods at all, and science neither operates on the presupposition that there is a god, or that there isn't. Science is not atheistic, nor is it theistic.

  • Science is science-not limited to anything :P

  • Science can prove God's existence, because it explores the universe around us, which helps us know more about God's creation, and thus more about the creator.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Stefy says2015-03-28T06:22:59.4013065-05:00
I dont think it is either athiest or thiest. Theres no olace for any belief in science. Its the scientific method snd it doesnt care about your personal viewpoints.
reece says2015-03-28T06:24:46.0719260-05:00
@Stefy But it's based on where the evidence leads and the evidence leads to a lack of god/gods.
reece says2015-03-28T07:22:31.3228267-05:00
@ClashnBoom Atheism doesn't either.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T07:27:13.1124601-05:00
@Reece that link leads me to the Google home page.
reece says2015-03-28T07:28:05.3801357-05:00
@ClashnBoom "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."
reece says2015-03-28T07:28:53.4648771-05:00
"Atheistic" means something like atheism in the context i placed it in.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T07:31:41.0000478-05:00
@Reece supreme being AKA God.
reece says2015-03-28T07:37:30.9228839-05:00
@ClashnBoom Now look up atheism or atheistic.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T07:41:03.8294905-05:00
@Reece and atheistic means something like that.
reece says2015-03-28T07:46:23.7842681-05:00
@ClashnBoom Can you find a more critical link than oxford? Anyway, that's what i was meaning. Don't try to straw man.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T07:48:07.0550592-05:00
@Reece I do not know what straw man means and
reece says2015-03-28T07:50:15.5215774-05:00
@ClashnBoom Straw man means to misrepresent a persons argument.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T07:54:48.4073257-05:00
@Reece Still both definitions mean nearly the same thing as I've shown you.
reece says2015-03-28T07:58:48.3674951-05:00
@ClashnBoom lack means a state of being without or not having enough of something. You're misrepresent my argument. This is what i mean. Are you going to move on or are you going to keep b_tching?
reece says2015-03-28T08:04:41.5648310-05:00
@18Karl Even though what you said makes no scenes... I'm not talking about individual scientists, i'm talking about the mainstream community as the question states. "Mainstream science does not need God" is more on the yes side.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T08:04:58.0582704-05:00
@Reece Being without is the key words. I'm gonna move on when you stop being a girl dog.
18Karl says2015-03-28T08:07:22.6025987-05:00
@Reece: What are you trying to tell me? I was asked-if mainstream science was atheistic. I responded-no, mainstream science does not need God, but it does not mean that the corollary of mainstream science is the denial of the existence of God. Mainstream science is *secular*, not *atheistic*
reece says2015-03-28T08:09:03.3467529-05:00
@18Karl I've already stated my definition/argument of what i meant by atheism.
Tumblrnatic says2015-03-28T08:09:56.5418400-05:00
Someone should debate this. I am not going to though.
reece says2015-03-28T08:11:16.7998129-05:00
@ClashnBoom Or not having enough...
reece says2015-03-28T08:12:36.1519567-05:00
@ClashnBoom Stop being intellectually dishonest.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T08:14:07.2366766-05:00
@Reece 2 definitions say atheists don't believe in God so just stop.
reece says2015-03-28T08:15:32.4244075-05:00
@ClashnBoom Both i would assume aren't critical sources?
reece says2015-03-28T08:16:20.2063525-05:00
And that doesn't hide the fact that you're straw manning.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T08:19:23.8327754-05:00
@Reece my source is the Oxford dictionary so your straw manning. Why is it when I see your comment it almost always means a debate.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T08:19:43.1298517-05:00
reece says2015-03-28T08:22:10.6737059-05:00
@ClashnBoom NO! That was my source you liar. And I've already said what lack means and I've replied to your pathetic argument about the key words of lack.
reece says2015-03-28T08:22:59.4857930-05:00
You ignored or didn't read my reply.
reece says2015-03-28T08:25:03.3333991-05:00
Is there no end to your intellectual dishonesty and appeal to consequences?
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T08:31:21.8318442-05:00
@Reece This will be one of my last arguments against you I do not need anymore insults. The Oxford dictionary is a source which you do not own and lack can mean both being without or not having enough so logically the only way to prove I'm right is another source which is the dictionary reference.
reece says2015-03-28T08:38:36.8837840-05:00
@ClashnBoom I didn't say i owned it, i said it's my source which you lied and said it's yours. I've already explained what i meant and you're just misrepresenting it. This is my poll so i have the home rules.
18Karl says2015-03-28T08:39:32.6725791-05:00
@Reece: Atheism is defined as " a disbelief or lacks of belief in the existence of God or gods". So your question extended would be: is mainstream science a lack of belief in the existence of God. To this, I have answered no. You, my friend, are guilty of strawmaning.
reece says2015-03-28T08:44:23.4481005-05:00
@18Karl Again i have already explained the definition of atheism in the poll. I do admit i should of put it up in the description. I'm not straw manning because i have separated the two definitions. I'm not misrepresenting your definition.
18Karl says2015-03-28T08:45:39.2042768-05:00
If you're going to argue on murky waters, I'm not going to be your opponent. Don't try to move the goalpost.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T08:46:59.9673180-05:00
@Reece No, if you wanted to define it then you should've put it in the deception box now your just a normal commenter. And the Oxford dictionary is my source cause I used it.
reece says2015-03-28T08:51:25.5772327-05:00
@18Karl @ClashnBoom Going by 18Karl's argument.. I'm not, i just have home rules.
reece says2015-03-28T08:51:48.0127519-05:00
Of what the definition means
18Karl says2015-03-28T08:52:19.7629091-05:00
@Reece Your home rules are more fallacious than a Sophist.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T08:53:56.5738732-05:00
@Reece We answered your badly asked question so stop arguing.
reece says2015-03-28T08:55:11.8922057-05:00
@18Karl I'm not arguing in murky waters because I've already explained what the definition is pretty much at the top. Why are they fallacious?
reece says2015-03-28T08:56:48.3151876-05:00
@ClashnBoom what question and what answer? Sorry i might of not paid attention.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T08:57:20.9136237-05:00
@Reece This poll is a question.
18Karl says2015-03-28T08:58:18.6230087-05:00
Lemme explain one last time m8. Atheism is "a lack of belief in gods". This question assumes that science causes a "lack of belief in God" which I clearly answered no, as science does not "need" God, which does not imply that science *is* a lack of belief in God. You are fallacious because you have provided two definitions, one from Oxford and one from Google Instant (American Atheists), and they are pretty much mutually incompatible. I mean, I am an atheist, and I know what atheism is-it is a denial of the existence of God. Science does not fookin lead to that m8. Now stop Sophisting and Aristotle yourself.
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T09:00:54.5440092-05:00
@Reece This poll question is so badly defined it's worst then every one of face1995's polls you criticized combined.
reece says2015-03-28T09:09:45.0654084-05:00
Okay, i'll let you have this one ;)
reece says2015-03-28T09:10:13.8316240-05:00
reece says2015-03-28T09:12:28.7083594-05:00
@ClashnBoom awww what a burn lol xD. Yo mama so fat she went to Mcdonalds tripped over Burger King and landed on Wendy's!
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T09:14:17.6886188-05:00
@Reece hey she started to exercise she finally went downstairs.
reece says2015-03-28T09:16:03.7061812-05:00
@ClashnBoom haha that's good.
TBR says2015-03-28T10:32:57.8361557-05:00
Not to jump into the bickering over references, but ClashnBoom, what reece is saying is, HE referenced the oxford dictionary, YOU referenced dictonary.Com. That seems obvious. As to what it means, the reference and all, I am never sure why the religious have to make a big deal out of this. From there perspective, understanding this concept gets muddy, but it is much more simple than you want to make it. If you ask me "is there a God", I say, "No, I have no evidence for a God". If the reply is "so, you BELIEVE there is no God?", and I respond "that makes no sense."
TBR says2015-03-28T10:43:23.0942000-05:00
As for the question reece, no. Science and religion, or Science and atheism. The relationship you are looking for exists, but within the scientists. Science has no concern one way or another.
reece says2015-03-28T10:47:31.6262020-05:00
@TBR Religious aspects aren't falsifiable though like the dragon in my garage.
reece says2015-03-28T10:57:50.6614338-05:00
@TBR science is secular (Having to do with a lack of god/god's)
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T11:01:50.3382974-05:00
@TBR I know what he meant but he said it harshly so I went noob sniping.
TBR says2015-03-28T11:12:57.9919006-05:00
@ClashnBoom - That's OK, but you seem... Well... New, right?
TBR says2015-03-28T11:16:33.7580199-05:00
Reece, science has no way to have "belief" in anything. Its mixing up stuff. That's my point. Scientists can believe, science can't. The efforts of science simply cant be atheistic. Its similar to the problem with religions saying "I believe there is no God". It just makes no sense.
TBR says2015-03-28T11:19:14.1315610-05:00
Let me try again. I get frustrated with people saying that I have a believe that there is no God. They could be just as frustrated by the poll question, and to be consistent, I understand the problem. Many scientist are atheists, that has nothing to do with the science. The two are connected, undoubtedly, but the connection has to do with... Other stuff.
reece says2015-03-28T11:28:51.7903574-05:00
@TBR science is predicated by Human thought.
Vox_Veritas says2015-03-28T14:40:09.6436696-05:00
No. Rather, the mainstream interpretation of data is atheistic.
reece says2015-03-28T14:45:06.3069679-05:00
Interpretation of data? Data is normally pretty straight ford.
Vox_Veritas says2015-03-28T20:44:10.3698350-05:00
Not really. For instance, you live in 300 B.C. You "gather data" by looking at the sky. The data, were it straight forward, would lead you to conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun, but that's not what your observations would lead you to conclude (unless you were some kind of freaking genius).
ClashnBoom says2015-03-28T20:46:04.5640310-05:00
@TBR I've been here three weeks.
sputnick1 says2015-03-28T22:23:27.6052961-05:00
This question is too subjective too have a black and white, yes or no answer.
reece says2015-03-28T22:28:22.3925271-05:00
@Vox_Veritas This is not 300AD and plus i think they already had answer for how stars changed. Data is still straight ford even if the conclusion is wrong.
reece says2015-03-28T22:28:59.6034815-05:00
Frankwest16 says2015-04-02T02:17:58.1681426-05:00
Technically it's atheistic, since by definition, science cannot deal with the supernatural, which includes deities, magic, etc.
tcutshaw2 says2015-04-02T10:55:51.5142799-05:00
There are plenty of scientists who are still Christians. Evolution does not necessarily disprove creation.
Lukas8 says2015-04-04T05:34:31.1526456-05:00
Science is based on evidence, meanwhile religion isnt. Science isnt religion or Atheism. But Atheism is based on Science.
reece says2015-04-11T17:13:43.9288267-05:00
@Lukas8 Atheism is based on science? Does that mean the scientific method? I think there is a disconnect in your reasoning.
dmiller728 says2015-10-27T00:20:27.0595738Z
The definitive nature of science contradicts something that exists and operates outside the laws of nature. To be with a deity is to be without science. A deity is not a deity if it is confined by the laws of nature.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.