
Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method - scoreponok
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method-prize-winning-physicist-says/
======
hota_mazi
> it does inform my position against atheism. I consider myself an agnostic.

Surprising for someone with his background to not understand the difference
between atheism and agnosticism, and obviously not understanding that these
two are not mutually exclusive.

> "I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I
> don’t believe.”

That's absolutely not what atheism is.

Atheism is a single position on a single claim. The claim is "There is a god",
and the position is "I don't accept that claim".

How can this be even remotely against the scientific method? It's not even a
claim, let alone a hypothesis.

This person seems to be so confused about basic epistemological definitions.

~~~
reaperducer
My understanding from theology classes a long, long time ago is as follows:

\- Atheist: Believes there is no God.

\- Agnostic: Doesn't know/isn't sure/doesn't care if there is a God.

\- Anti-theist: Is against the mere idea that there is a God.

That may have changed in the intervening decades, and with the rise of the
internet, the term "atheist" seems to have changed in popular culture, often
to suit a particular person's views or vocabulary. A lot of internet atheists
strike me as anti-theists. But that's not a common term.

~~~
hota_mazi
Absolutely not.

Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge.

They are complementary.

You can be atheist/agnostic, theist/agnostic, atheist/gnostic, theist/gnostic.
It's a matrix.

Also there are two flavors of atheism: those that believe there is no god (a
minority in my opinion, and that position requires a burden of proof).

And there are atheists who simply reject the claim that there is a god. They
say there might be a god, or maybe not, but that people who claim there is a
god have not presented enough evidence for that claim to be accepted.

If I look at a grass field and tell you there is an even number of blades of
grass in that field, you are not going to accept my claim.

Does that mean you think that number is odd?

No. You're just saying I have not provided evidence for my claim, and
therefore, you do not accept it. But you are not taking any position yourself.

That's atheism.

~~~
DanBC
This doesn't match any dictionary I have.

Atheism: belief there is no god.

Agnosticism: we don't, we can't, know whether a god exists or not.

> They say there might be a god, or maybe not,

This by definition is not atheism, it's agnosticism.

~~~
gotocake
The OED and M-W both disagree with whichever dictionary you’re using.

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism)

You also seem to be strafing your dictionary claim and then ignoring anyone
who shows that you’re incorrect. That’s a poor way to debate.

------
VikingCoder
I hate the clickbait title. I hate how it will be misunderstood. I hate that
the subtleties in his statement will be ignored.

And to the people who care about this, his claim about atheism is pedantic.

"I do not believe aliens abducted my dad."

Sorry, but that's a perfectly rational thing to say, in all but the most
academic of circles.

In every-day life, I don't need to be so cautious as to say, "I have no
evidence that aliens abducted my dad."

Drawing a distinction between those two is a waste of time, and some in the
theist crowd will point to this and say, "Scientific American says denying God
is inconsistent with the Scientific Method!"

This will do harm in the real world, and not any good in the academic world.

You know what else I say?

F=ma

I know about quantum mechanics and relativity, thanks.

I don't need a Scientific American article telling me, breathlessly, that
"F=ma is false!"

In context, F=ma is a perfectly valid thing to say.

Imagine if Scientific American had a headline: "Earth Is Not Round". [1]

Isn't that an awful clickbait title? Does the content of the article really
_inform_ anyone who actually cares about the subject?

I'm not going to go to a GIS Conference and declare, "The world is ROUND."
That would be moronic.

I'm not going to get drawn in to a discussion, "Yes, it's possible the world
actually IS flat, but has only appeared to be round so far to all of the
experiments I'm aware of."

F=ma. The world is round. I believe God doesn't exist.

[1] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-
roun...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/)

~~~
gamblor956
It's not pedantic.

One is a statement of belief. The other one is not. In the context of a
discussion on belief systems, it's the difference between night and day.

And he's correct: atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, since it
posits something that cannot be proven or disproven using existing scientific
method.

~~~
VikingCoder
There are people who call themselves atheists who define atheism as carefully
as you want them to.

It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the
scientific method."

We're debating how many people use a term the way you want them to, and how
many people use a term the way I want them to.

Hence: pedantics.

EDIT:

Try this video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y)

~~~
gamblor956
_It 's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the
scientific method."_

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief, and can't be proven
or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Ergo, atheism
is inconsistent with the scientific method in the same way that theism is
inconsistent with the scientific method.

This is not to say that agnosticism is consistent with the scientific method,
since agnostics merely posit that they don't know whether or not God exists.
Some couch it in language like "there's no evidence" but not all agnostics
base their skepticism on a reason consistent with the scientific method.

TLDR: Theists believe "God." Atheists believe "no God." Agnostics _don 't_
have a belief either way. This is not pedantry, it's a fundamental difference
in belief systems.

~~~
VikingCoder
In the contexts I care about, this absolutely is pedantry.

If I as a layman make the assertion, "I am an atheist," and a perfect
scientist asks you to translate my statement into an expression compatible
with the scientific method, that he could understand, you could do it.

Here, let me try: "VikingCoder is not convinced there is evidence that proves
the existence of a being which created the universe."

Feel free to make your own translation, if you are dissatisfied with mine.

And if it turns out that you do not believe there's any difference between the
scientifically literate explanation for agnosticism and atheism, THAT'S FINE
BY ME.

I believe there is a scientifically literate explanation for atheism which
differs from the scientifically literate explanation for agnosticism.

Because we're humans. We are allowed to express opinions. That doesn't mean we
have abandoned the scientific method.

I'm allowed to have thought, "I believe we will find the Higgs boson."

I'm allowed to think, "I believe I will never be convinced of the existence of
God."

> It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of
> experimentation or observation.

My atheism absolutely could be disproven by observation. I'd be delighted to
go in to listing observations that would disprove my atheism, if you care.

(I think you probably shouldn't have used "or observation" in that statement,
if you wanted to be harder on me.)

------
mindcrime
OK, he's obviously a brilliant guy, but I find his argument about atheism
pretty weak... or rather, I should say that it only makes sense at a pretty
abstract level. And that, IMO, is basically the same level of abstraction
where one can make a compelling argument that science rests on (a form of)
faith just like religion does (but possibly not the _same_ form).

Anyway, "belief" in the supernatural makes, as far as I can tell, no testable
predictions, or where it does, those predictions have either been falsified or
contradict generally accepted scientific principles. I would say that non-
belief, rather than being some "affirmative assertion" like he posits, is just
the null hypothesis, and that all of the onus is on believer to show a way to
invalidate that null hypothesis.

He is also ignoring the distinction between "weak atheist" and "strong
atheist" where the former very specifically do _not_ make an affirmative
declaration that "there is no god." Admittedly one can argue about the
(apparently subtle) distinction between "weak atheist" and "agnostic" but
whatever.

Me personally? I go with this point of view: I don't need a special word to
signify my non-belief in Santa Claus, and likewise I don't need a special word
to signify my non-belief in "god". To me, those things occupy the same
conceptual category. _shrug_

~~~
sonnyblarney
"those predictions have either been falsified or contradict generally accepted
scientific principles." ...

Well our current flavour of Science is effectively materialist and it starts
effectively with the assumption that 'the universe is made up of a bunch of
laws' as we try to discover them. It postulates a priori a specific
metaphysical position that immediately negates anything else ... so it's going
to be impossible to test what has been ruled out as an assumption.

The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism in
the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem' \- i.e. taken to it's
extreme, not only is there no 'supernatural' \- there is effectively not even
'intelligence' or 'life' or possibly 'consciousness'. Just the _appearance_ of
those things.

So logic, reason and science, i.e. tools which we 'the observers' developed to
facilitate our understanding of ourselves, has come to negate our very
existence? Or is it more likely we are caught up in our own bad thinking?

It's funny that we ignore the biggest problem staring us the mirror: 'what are
we' / 'what is life' \- in lieu of somewhat more tangible things like 'Dark
Matter' as we stare off into space, because the 'what are we' problem does not
fit well into our materialist equations. In fact, speculation about 'life' may
undermine just a little bit the very premise of science, in a much worse way
than string theory (assuming it ends up really being actually wrong) ever
will.

The headline is a little click-baitey, and Gleisers comments I don't think are
much more insightful than a decent HN comment ... but I think the underlying
problem is the straight jacket that materialism has imposed upon many of our
best thinkers.

The argument he presents is essentially that of someone at an intellectual
dead-end, as materialism seems to be on this issue.

Emergence [1] and Bio-Centrism [2] may offer us some hints at how to rethink
our perspectives to accommodate for the very nature of life itself, the
expression of which I think is what inspires our spiritual inquisition.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)
[2] [http://www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-
consciou...](http://www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-
consciousness-are-the-keys-to-understanding-the-true-nature-of-the-universe/)

~~~
visarga
> The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism
> in the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem'

We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power and the end
result of billions of years of competitive self replication under limited
resources (evolution). We survived entropy for long by learning to sense, make
use of and adapt to the changing environment. Our fundamental internal purpose
is to exist and to make more of ourselves (just another way of saying 'to
exist').

We're agents learning to sense and act in a way that would maximise our future
rewards, reward types which have been selected by evolution to serve self
replication.

I don't see nihilism in this position, maybe there is a lack of appreciation
in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life.

> not only is there no 'supernatural' \- there is effectively not even
> 'intelligence' or 'life' or possibly 'consciousness'. Just the appearance of
> those things.

There is, we have the ability to learn to sense and act based on our rich
environment and complex brains. Our emotions encode our current rewards and
the prediction of future rewards. We learn the value function and the policy
function that would allow us to continue to exist and self replicate. They
form what we call 'consciousness' and 'intelligence'.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power"

", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical
self replicator, the actual source of life"

Maybe you've misunderstood my statement.

Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating
bags of atoms'.

Materialism essentially starts out with that premise, i.e. that the universe
is particles that behave according to specific rules we will eventually
discover. It's a premise, not a fact.

The materialist premise is exceedingly useful for many things, but in it's
extreme, it's ridiculously stupid as it denies what we accept as a very
rational fact: that we are alive.

In other words - because we can't explain life with physics, doesn't mean life
doesn't exist, it means that physics is probably the wrong tool for the job.

The mental trap of materialism is strong, sometimes we get caught in it like a
Chinese finger trap: it's deeply nihilist to propose that we, as a life forms,
don't even exist, and that the words we write, the thoughts we have,
essentially don't exist, or are at most only the result of random
interactions.

It's also exceedingly hypocritical to live life with purpose or expression,
and then somehow to have some strange belief that it is utterly random and
meaningless. I think it's actually totally irrational and illogical.

~~~
jddj
If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of
atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own
relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it
would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly
maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out
pretty comfortably to persuing philosophy, politics, raising a family etc.,
even in a universe where everything else is also just a differently shaped bag
of atoms.

There's nothing inherently more meaningful about the supernatural than the
natural.

This particular bag of atoms, for instance, derives much more pleasure from
acknowledging itself as such, than from deciding that it is instead some
platonically ideal "being" who was created by an ideal God who always was and
whose mere existence eliminates every trace of the incomprehensible, random
and emergent beauty that exists in this brutally materialistic framework in
one fell swoop.

~~~
tivert
> If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of
> atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own
> relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it
> would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly
> maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out
> pretty comfortably to persuing philosophy, politics, raising a family etc...

...and slavery.

~~~
jddj
Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well.

~~~
tivert
> Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well.

Honestly, that just sounds like the peace of mind of a psychopath.

~~~
jddj
Psychopath? That I would rather that all the terrible things in the world
emerged randomly rather than being a part of some grand plan, or some
supernatural game of Good Vs Evil?

I think you might be reaching for a label when you could have simply said we
disagree.

------
hota_mazi
> And we know for a fact that there will be no other humans in the universe;

You know that for a fact, really? With billions and billions of planets in the
universe, you know that for a fact?

That's a pretty rich position for someone claiming he's an agnostic, "someone
who doesn't know".

> like when you have scientists—Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss among
> them—claiming we have solved the problem of the origin of the universe

Citation needed. These two brilliant men never thought anything remotely like
that, they are/were way too humble to make this kind of claim.

> or that string theory is correct and that the final “theory of everything”
> is at hand

Same remark. The scientific community is pretty well aware that there are many
more detractors of string theory, or the the M theory is just around the
corner, than supporters. This guy is a theoretical physicist, really?

~~~
asark
> That's a pretty rich position for someone claiming he's an agnostic,
> "someone who doesn't know".

There _might_ exist a being that defies everything we know about physical
reality! But not other humans anywhere or anywhen. That's just highly
improbable, _not_ purely speculative and outside the bounds of what we
understand to be reality, so I reject it as impossible.

 _eyeroll_

------
zelon88
After a little (very little) digging the "prize" he won was the Templeton
Prize for "affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight,
discovery, or practical works."

On the topic of science v. religion he also says "Science does not kill God."

In my opinion this mystical thinking begs the question if he can be trusted
within his field. He obviously lacks the ability to remain impartial about his
religion. He's playing out a personal crisis in the open for his entire field
to witness.

There's just too many things wrong with this that I can't adequately format
them all for this post. I feel like I shouldn't have to teach him about things
like Atheism. He should have the impartiality to learn about them, accurately,
on his own before he goes around making an unsubstantiated ass out of himself.

And who is this mystical fairy-tale Templeton organization who rewards
whimsical fringe scientists?

How is a "creationist scientist" (oxymoron in-and-of itself) getting an award
from a creationist philanthropic organization for doing bad science to promote
creationism newsworthy in the science community?

~~~
CharlesColeman
> In my opinion this mystical thinking begs the question if he can be trusted
> within his field. He obviously lacks the ability to remain impartial about
> his religion. He's playing out a personal crisis in the open for his entire
> field to witness.

> There's just too many things wrong with this that I can't adequately format
> them all for this post. I feel like I shouldn't have to teach him about
> things like Atheism. He should have the impartiality to learn about them,
> accurately, on his own before he goes around making an unsubstantiated ass
> out of himself.

> And who is this mystical fairy-tale Templeton organization who rewards
> whimsical fringe scientists?

> How is a "creationist scientist" (oxymoron in-and-of itself) getting an
> award from a creationist philanthropic organization for doing bad science to
> promote creationism newsworthy in the science community?

If you'd read the article, you'd have found that Marcelo Gleiser, the
recipient of the award, self-identifies as an agnostic. And a _tiny_ amount of
digging shows he's also obviously not a creationist:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/01/18/145338804/why-d...](https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/01/18/145338804/why-
do-so-many-have-trouble-with-evolution).

Your comment consists of little but bomb-throwing falsehoods, and is really
about a straw-man of your own invention. It's not really the kind of thing
that should be posted in a flamewar-prone topic, or anywhere for that matter.

~~~
zelon88
I forgot, HN is only for AWS press releases and people telling other people
what should be on HN. Gotcha!

On a serious note... you could have stopped after: > "In my opinion..."

------
sorokod
" honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I
mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement
that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no
evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration.
But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a
hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” "

Oh dear, he should have checked out "Russell's teapot"*

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

~~~
asark
This seems easy to reducio to "you can't disbelieve anything you're not
empirically measuring _right this second_!" without even going too far down
the epistemological rabbit hole.

"Dude the sun just disappeared! I know you still see light but it's coming
from a different source entirely, that appeared so seamlessly that you didn't
notice the shift!". No. No, I don't believe you. No, I don't feel compelled to
check just this second. Or ever, really.

------
lisper
> The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

This is a common trope, but it's wrong in many cases. The absence of evidence
for leprechauns/unicorns/bigfoot/etc. is in fact evidence of absence of these
things. Likewise, the absence of evidence for gods is in fact evidence of
absence of at least certain kinds of gods. In particular, it is evidence of
the absence of gods that interact with the universe in certain meaningful
ways. Evidence cannot rule out passive observer gods, like the deist deity,
but that is generally not what is at issue when disputes of this sort arise.

~~~
CharlesColeman
>> The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

> This is a common trope, but it's wrong in many cases.

When you're dealing with something of low intelligence or awareness,
_heuristically_ absence of evidence can be _approximated_ as evidence of
absence, if you've made so thorough a set of observations that the probability
of absence can be estimated to be very high.

However, that heuristic fails when you're dealing with something with
intelligence and awareness, as that thing can choose to behave differently
when you're observing it vs. when you're not. Doubly so when you're dealing
with something that may not even be bound by the laws that bind your
observations.

~~~
lisper
You are confusing evidence with proof. Absence of evidence is not _proof_ of
absence, but it is _evidence_ of absence even if the subject is intelligent.
The absence of evidence for alien visitors to earth is in fact evidence of the
absence of such visitors.

Now, there are some _adversarial_ situations where absence of evidence is only
_weak_ evidence of absence. Two examples of this are the game of hide-and-
seek, and steganography. There is also the invisible pink unicorn. So you
can't rule out a certain class of adversarial deity just as you cannot rule
out a passive one. But again, the actual deities that are the generally the
subject of dispute are not adversarial.

(This, BTW, is one of the reasons that my favorite god is Loki.)

------
kbuchanan
Lots of comments quibbling about whether he understands the word atheism.

His central point—despite the interview title, which he didn't write—is:
humility. He argues that to practice science is to avoid adopting a position
of certainty, but rather, to ask questions.

That almost everyone on this thread missed that point suggests maybe he's on
to something.

~~~
Latty
Except they didn't, because every Atheist I have ever known would, given
evidence, become a theist. They accept humility and that they don't know -
they are simply stating their _current position_ given the evidence they have.

The author doesn't understand the argument of the people they are criticizing,
and so attributes a lack of humility to them based on their strawman of their
argument.

------
qntty
> And by doing that, by understanding how science advances, science really
> becomes a deeply spiritual conversation with the mysterious, about all the
> things we don’t know.

Seems like this might be the central point. You may or may not be able to
rationally justify atheism, but that's besides the point. If you want to do
science, you have to cultivate your feeling that the world is mysterious and
that there's a lot left to discover. To so that, you need to be open to a
variety of interpretations of the world. Atheism might be fine for a
philosopher who wants to figure out what is rationally justified, but for a
scientist, you need to keep your mind open to stay creative.

For me, the best argument against atheism is that it's boring. I get to choose
my attitude toward the stuff that we can never know. Why not choose the more
interesting choice (i.e. agnosticism)?

------
teknico
Negative/weak atheism ("I do not believe there is a God") expresses the
absence of a belief, and therefore is compatible with the scientific method,
and with agnosticism.

Positive/strong atheism ("I believe there is no God") expresses an unproved
and unprovable belief, and therefore is incompatible with the scientific
method, and with agnosticism.

The above is true for any definition of God.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism)

~~~
insickness
> Positive/strong atheism ("I believe there is no God") expresses an unproved
> and unprovable belief, and therefore is incompatible with the scientific
> method, and with agnosticism.

'Incompatible' is not an accurate word here. 'Incompatible' implies that
Atheism conflicts with the scientific method, which it does not. It would be
more accurate to say atheism is orthogonal to the scientific method. But even
that isn't true.

Saying that God exists is a claim in the positive and requires proof on your
part to prove the claim, not proof on my part to disprove the claim. Anyone
can make a claim about anything (pigs can fly) and we're not required to
provide proof to the contrary in order to say with certainty that pigs cannot
fly. Likewise, I can say, "There is no God" without having to prove that God
doesn't exist.

------
maxxxxx
That's just about semantics. By that definition you pretty much have to be
agnostic about everything where there is no direct proof, including elves,
Santa Claus, dinosaurs in Congo, alien abductions and the tooth fairy. I can
state the world will disappear in 10 years and nobody should be able to refute
my claim but has to stay agnostic until 10 years have passed.

I am sure believing in a god is even less consistent with the scientific
method that atheism is.

~~~
hota_mazi
Atheism is an answer to a question. It has exactly nothing to do with the
scientific the method in much the same way that "What is your favorite ice
cream?" has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Belief in god, on the other hand, is making a claim, and as such, can be
verified by the scientific method.

It has been, actually, and belief in god is by definition disproven by the
scientific method.

------
lorriman
One of the interesting, teeth-gnashing ironies is that the father of modern
genetics is a Catholic monk, Gregor Mendel, and the inventor of the Big Bang
theory is a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. George Lemaitre was given a
papal award for his efforts.

Odd that Hitchens and Dawkins never mention that fascinating fact that their
audiences would have been fascinated to know.

Nor mention that most of Christianity never had a dogma of a literal
translation of the Bible. hmmmmm...

Nor tell them that most monotheisms define their supreme beings identically,
ie it's the same god. Nor that the Catholic Church, that rigid institution
that will not be polite enough to die or bend, teaches that the supreme being
has manifested in most other monotheisms. Indeed few of them are exclusivist
as atheists like to wrongly assert.

Meanwhile, it is a fact that something in the universe has the property of
'existence'. Logically, it exists of itself and could not have ever not
existed. Existing of itself, it appears to be a logical feedback loop. Which
leads straight to a possibility, the grandest of feedback loops: self-
awareness.

And Dawkins main objection "Who made God?" is answered since...

The real question has never been "Is there a god?", but rather "Is the
fundamental thing self-aware, and if it is, does it care?".

Meanwhile, despite the objections of atheists and agnostics, especially in
what they see as the otherwise incomprehensible suffering of the innocent and
children, the answer has always been to ask.

Ie, "If you exist, God being, please reveal yourself, and show me why it is
that the innocent must suffer".

------
Grue3
It's perfectly consistent with the scientific method. Atheism is falsifiable.
If there's solid evidence of gods existing, an atheist will change their mind.
Theism is non-falsifiable, and thus inconsistent with science. Also Templeton
Foundation is a well-known collective of anti-science loons.

------
jmpman
People who deny existence of the tooth fairy are inconsistent with the
scientific method?

------
lumberingjack
This guy sounds exactly like I practiced pastor lots of BS too much assuming
and a whole lot of nothing really important said.

------
hurryskurry
Not forming a belief when you dont have evidence for the existence of
something? Sounds like good metaphysics to me.

------
LinuxBender
The author left out us militant agnostics.

~~~
V-eHGsd_
there are dozens of us, dozens!

~~~
rdruxn
I wouldn't know

------
erik14th
atheism is dumb, whoever thought that opposing a metaphysical concept that
lies way too close to the heart of those who believe in it was a good idea to
curb religious influence wasn't on their brightest day.

Determining the lack of evidence of connection between religious entities and
a supposed god is possible, saying a concept as ill defined as "god" does not
exist doesn't even make sense to me.

------
TheMagicHorsey
How can someone so smart not even understand what atheism is?

He may be trying to drum up some funding/interest in a book or project. This
guy is unlikely to have accidentally misunderstood prominent atheists like Sam
Harris.

------
ElBarto
I think we should further make a difference between the existence of a god and
religion.

Atheism is significantly driven by the rejection of religion.

The existence of a god can be discussed and indeed we do not know. However
religions are backward ideologies that should really be relegated to the
history books.

------
senectus1
I'm amazed and more than a little disappointed at how many of us dont
understand the difference between "I dont believe there is a god" and "I dont
believe your claim of a god".

Atheism is _pure_ science. Its viewed a hypothesis, looked at the evidence,
found it wanting and dismissed the Hypothesis. For every single claim.

The moment an Atheist finds some evidence to be even slightly compelling they
become agnostic until enough evidence compels them to believe (Theist) or they
discover better evidence to dismiss the previously compelling evidence (back
to Atheist).

That's it.

Its incorrect to claim an atheist claims that a god doesn't exist. they just
analyse and accept or reject a claim that one does exist.

