Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Eternity
- Member
- Forever in our hearts
- offline
Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
OP - July 12, 2011, 12:47 AM

Having supposedly disproven religions "God" they still haven't disproved "God" as a whole. Less they have come up with a reason for the big bang occurring I haven't heard of. Doesn't seem more logical for them to be agnostics then atheists?
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #1 - July 12, 2011, 12:54 AM

Quote from: Eternity on July 12, 2011, 12:47 AM
Doesn't seem more logical for them to be agnostics then atheists?

Why?

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Ephemeral
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #2 - July 12, 2011, 01:19 AM

Scientists also haven't proved the non-existence of whangdoodles :(, doesnt that mean they should be agnostics with regards to the great Whangdoodles?

"If intelligence is feminine... I would want that mine would, in a resolute movement, come to resemble an impious woman."
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #3 - July 12, 2011, 01:35 AM

They're too used to trying out hypotheses to just throw up their arms in resigned unknowing on this issue.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #4 - July 12, 2011, 01:43 AM

Scientists always remain skeptical until they see positive evidence FOR something's existence. They don't start from the premise that some invisible, mysterious thing exists and then try to disprove it, that would be doing things arseways.

So until someone provides evidence of God's existence there is no scientific reason to be anything other than atheist. Theism is based on faith, not science.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Alex Lam Meem
- Restricted
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #5 - July 12, 2011, 02:11 AM

^ that post should go into an encyclopedia. Not sure were in an encyclopedia but it still sounds awesome. I would consider it for my "signature".

"That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
- Air
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #6 - July 12, 2011, 02:19 AM

Quote from: Eternity on July 12, 2011, 12:47 AM
Having supposedly disproven religions "God" they still haven't disproved "God" as a whole. Less they have come up with a reason for the big bang occurring I haven't heard of. Doesn't seem more logical for them to be agnostics then atheists?

Technically, they're "agnostic atheists". This is because atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), and agnosticism is a lack of knowledge regarding the existence of god(s). In practice we just call ourselves "atheists" because it's more succinct, and because everybody is agnostic, whether they'd like to admit it or not. As sharper minds have pointed out, we're technically agnostic about all sorts of nonsense, like fairies and wizards, but it'd be ridiculous to declare that in everyday life.

You need to read this book.
- zooby
- Ex-Muslim
- Snoozin'
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #7 - July 12, 2011, 02:45 AM

Quote from: Eternity on July 12, 2011, 12:47 AM
Having supposedly disproven religions "God" they still haven't disproved "God" as a whole. Less they have come up with a reason for the big bang occurring I haven't heard of. Doesn't seem more logical for them to be agnostics then atheists?

I think Godot sums it up nicely. Just to add, most people don't actually bother to disprove religions gods, it is up to the religion to prove itself, however most religions suffer the same faults in their claims to validity. If I ever find a religion that proves itself to me, through an argument that is not flawed in any way I would have no problem believing in that religion.

Join us on chat. Click here.
- harakaat
- The Cunning Linguist
- Ex-Muslim
- The World Is Quiet Here
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #8 - July 12, 2011, 04:58 AM

Quote from: Eternity on July 12, 2011, 12:47 AM
Having supposedly disproven religions "God" they still haven't disproved "God" as a whole. Less they have come up with a reason for the big bang occurring I haven't heard of. Doesn't seem more logical for them to be agnostics then atheists?

1. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive
2. Evidence of absence is absence of evidence
3. There are cosmogonic models for how the universe may have come into existence that don't resort to the supernatural. You don't need a god to account for the origin of the universe. Read Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design.
4. Technically, all (non-theistic) agnostics are (at least weak) atheists.
5. As for strong atheism, check this out: http://www.strongatheism.net/

قل للمليحة في الخمار الأسود
مـاذا فـعــلت بــناسـك مـتـعـبد

قـد كـان شـمّر لــلـصلاة ثـيابه
حتى خـطرت له بباب المسجد

ردي عليـه صـلاتـه وصيـامــه
لا تـقــتـلــيه بـحـق ديــن محمد
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #9 - July 12, 2011, 09:14 AM

Trying to disprove the existence of a transcendental entity is like trying to prove there is no invisible man in a photograph. By what method are you supposed to do that?

Agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions. I'm technically agnostic atheist, but agnostic only insofar as I have no way of proving a non-physical being does not exist, as it is beyond the reach of physical being/experimentation...
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #10 - July 12, 2011, 02:00 PM

Atheism is the default position. It is the only rational assumption in the absence of evidence. If some evidence comes to light, then it is a position that can be disregarded, and considered falsified. That is how science works, by falsification.

Similarly, when you go to court, you are innocent until proven guilty. In the absence of evidence, the only rational default position has to always be skepticism. Notice that you are never 'proven innocent' or even 'proven not guilty'. But rather you have not been proven guilty.

Innocence is falsifiable, whereas guilt is not. Atheism is falsifiable, whereas theism is not. Science is falsifiable, whereas bullshit is not.
- Stuff
- Member
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #11 - July 12, 2011, 02:54 PM

Quote from: Eternity on July 12, 2011, 12:47 AM
Having supposedly disproven religions "God" they still haven't disproved "God" as a whole.

Well, depends on your criteria for proving something.
I assume by "God as a whole" you mean an immaterial, atemporal, aspatial creator.
I can't speak for scientists, but here are the issues that I personally have with the concept:

1. Neuroscience suggests that the mind is an emergent property of physical system (brain), not something that can exist independently in vacuum, let alone "outside of space" and "outside of time". One can of course imagine God as some "special mind", beyond our comprehension, but that would be groundless speculation.

2. Atemporality and aspatiality are also very queer attributes, all the more so for a sentient being. Sentience implies mental processes. Mental processes are events. How can you have events without time, and space? Ah, it's all so far out there...

3. Supposing there was some eternal predecessor to BB, I find it more reasonable to imagine it is a natural, unconscious process, and not some super-mind with an agenda.

Quote
Less they have come up with a reason for the big bang occurring I haven't heard of. Doesn't seem more logical for them to be agnostics then atheists?

Even the notion that Big Bang had to have a "reason" for occurring is a questionable assumption. Who says there is no randomness? Not most contemporary physicists, I reckon.

Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
- Sprout
- You are alive, live!
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #12 - July 12, 2011, 03:37 PM

Is there a study that I'm missing that suggests that scientist are more atheist than agnostic.

Second, does it matter? Are you agnostic? If yes, are you insecure and in need of famous people to confirm your beliefs (or not) for you?

"Nobody who lived through the '50s thought the '60s could've existed. So there's always hope."-Tuli Kupferberg

What apple stores are like.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QmZWv-eBI
- Stuff
- Member
- offline
Re: Why are more scientist athiest rather then agnostic?
Reply #13 - July 12, 2011, 04:02 PM

Quote
Is there a study that I'm missing that suggests that scientist are more atheist than agnostic.

Second, does it matter? Are you agnostic? If yes, are you insecure and in need of famous people to confirm your beliefs (or not) for you?

Well, here's the oft-quoted study on theological views of National Academy of Sciences:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
1« Previous thread | Next thread »