CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Any one that thinks other-wise, clearly does not think. To wish something to be true doesn't make it so. Atheist take heed to your own statements. You claim God doesn't exist by this reasoning and then deny it. Clearly a case of radical disbelieving atheist and you thought radical religious people are unable to see the truth.
As far as your claim that atheist have no gods, keep telling yourself this and one day you may even believe it.
Source:
American Heritage #4 One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
Merriam-Webster #3 : a person or thing of supreme value
I put forth a reason and I demand the same respect before you down vote. If you cannot post one, then that is your problem. Not mine. I have complied to the rules of atheism, presented evidence and applied logic.
And the thing which really blows my mind is that they are proving our point every single time they down-vote one of these perfectly reasonable arguments. They call it 'sophistry' because they don't want to believe it. Perhaps they are so paranoid that everything is specious to them?
American Heritage #4 One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
Merriam-Webster #3 : a person or thing of supreme value
'Money was their god.' That is precisely the context in which this debate was written. They think that by writing 'god' they are proving that 'gods' exist. They aren't! They're simply accepting the well-known-by-us fact that science is the basis of their beliefs, and if they aren't 'gods' than they can at least be called the equivalent of a 'priest'.
a person or thing of supreme value
Seeing as how science is the 'supreme value' of atheism (science 'proves' atheism), then one would come to the conclusion that the one who proves science is held at an equal value, if not greater; thus, giving him a 'godlike' status.
Atheism does not necessarily have science has its foundation. Actually, when it comes towards most gods: it logically can't be since most of them are non empirical/ nonfalsifiable.
modern day satanism, actually another version of atheism, does not have science as its supreme value.
And the thing which really blows my mind is that they are proving our point every single time they down-vote one of these perfectly reasonable arguments. They call it 'sophistry' because they don't want to believe it. Perhaps they are so paranoid that everything is specious to them?
Back when I was around your age, I used to make specious arguments like this. As a matter of fact you are acting singled out in order to avoid accepting the responsibility of using the rules of debate and reasoning.
'Money was their god.' That is precisely the context in which this debate was written. They think that by writing 'god' they are proving that 'gods' exist. They aren't! They're simply accepting the well-known-by-us fact that science is the basis of their beliefs, and if they aren't 'gods' than they can at least be called the equivalent of a 'priest'.
Irreligious people don't think like religious people.
Seeing as how science is the 'supreme value' of atheism (science 'proves' atheism), then one would come to the conclusion that the one who proves science is held at an equal value, if not greater; thus, giving him a 'godlike' status.
There is actually no supreme value to atheism. Atheism is the opposing dialectic in the "god debate." It exists merely to be the opposite of theism. Since theism is a positive claim with no evidence, it collapses in on itself and atheism exists as the reasonable position.
Science is a tool for acquiring knowledge about the natural world. It works wonderfully by assuming an atheist or deist universe (in other words no supernatural intervention).
It completely blows my mind also, that one can state they only believe in facts and then disregard facts. With mindset of theirs, they only prove that there is no facts to prove that God doesn't exist. There is no reason to get an atheist to believe in God, they already do. They discredit their own arguments against the absence of God.
Atheism has no proof, because they only use the facts they choose to use and throw out all others. They are purely believers that no gods exist and only use science as a means to justify their belief and therefore do not claim it as their god. The truth is they have only their faith that their is no god. Faithfully anti-religious, what a concept.
It is not science which justifies atheism in the great majority of cases. It is usually incapable of doing such.
Also, god as your are defining it: plainly isn't the god which atheism claims to be without. Your using multiple meanings of words to your advantage: sophism, and your not fooling anyone but terminator. specifically your guilty of Equivocation.
It completely blows my mind also, that one can state they only believe in facts and then disregard facts. With mindset of theirs, they only prove that there is no facts to prove that God doesn't exist. There is no reason to get an atheist to believe in God, they already do. They discredit their own arguments against the absence of God.
It must be strange to live a life where you're critically wrong on so many things and everything you say is almost surely wrong on more than one level.
For example, by definition an atheist doesn't believe in god. Second, the case against god is one of burden of proof. No one has ever met the challenge to prove that god exists so I can happily deny his existence like you deny the toothfairy exists. But hey, keep babbling about atheists and some conspiracy.
Atheism has no proof, because they only use the facts they choose to use and throw out all others. They are purely believers that no gods exist and only use science as a means to justify their belief and therefore do not claim it as their god. The truth is they have only their faith that their is no god. Faithfully anti-religious, what a concept.
Atheism is a matter of logic, not science. If someone makes a claim, but refuses to prove it, or makes the claim so incoherent that it can never be proven, then it follows that they're probably wrong.
I put forth a reason and I demand the same respect before you down vote. If you cannot post one, then that is your problem. Not mine. I have complied to the rules of atheism, presented evidence and applied logic.
You didn't use reason, you used sophistry. Specifically you equivocated the definition of god to try and tie together the idea that atheists have one.
I'm sure that to one as deluded as you, it's impossible to imagine that there exists people who worship nothing. Their authorities are not infallible, but human, and capable of error. They share common interest groups not because they are part of a sect or religion, but because they are independent minds coming together on certain views.
There is no sophistry on my part, because the definition is not mine. I can not speak for the makers of dictionaries. My proof is again your god.
You realise that you can't "trick" me in debate like you might many others. Think of me as a bullshit detector and every time you spin a lie, I'm going to beep and call you out on it.
You took the meaning of god as something held in high esteem, made the assertion that all atheists hold science in high esteem, and then equivocated the definition of god you were using to mean a supreme authority. Ergo, you held that there is no atheist without a supreme authority (in your example, god). This is sophistry by equivocation.
It really is silly trying to analogize religious concepts to atheism but for the sake of argument I'll bite...
I would say a better analogy would be that Scientists are the priests/rabbis/pastors of Atheism. Atheists don't necessarily worship anything but they do hold science in high esteem because it helps explain the natural world. Scientists are the ones that interpret the natural world and explain it. So in that respect, like clergymen that attempt explaining the Bible, Scientists explain to Atheists what is important to them...the origin and function of the universe.
The rules of atheism is not to present evidence and apply logic. Its just that applying logic and looking at evidence generally leads to atheism.
I'm a atheist by most definitions and I do not worship, idealized or follow a scientist. I do hold them in high regard. Also, science is a tool and it is a tool which is incapable of "disproving" most gods.
True, the notion of God doesn't indicate supernatural because the notion of God may have come from ancient aliens or ancient astronauts; hence, virtually all religions conclude God coming the heavens or the stars, which is what astronauts are.
So you are saying that we must use the same definitions on different debates?
If you are going to argue a point, you stick to one definition. When you switch between them in the same argument, you are using one to connect the other, which isn't logically consistent. You ought to know better than this.
You and me are both using the definitions of gods as the center of one's life and not in a supernatural way, it is only the Atheist that use the supernatural definition here. This is extremely funny because they claim he doesn't exist and yet continue to bring up the supernatural. They keep this up and I will have to send their disputes to missionaries, nothing like having supporting evidence on hand.
Atheist believe God does not exist, period. Proof that God exist will never even be taken into consideration, because to them there will never be any proof. If you accept the possibility, then you are not an atheist. Therefore atheist have an absolutist attitude in regards to God and have become a religion.
Yet 'religious' has become so inappropriate a word that they won't agree. They'll deny that they truly have such a belief in atheism and claim that, if there was empirical proof, they'd believe. But, we both know that they wouldn't believe even if Christ returned this very second. They'd write it off as an hallucination or an hoax.
If you accept the possibility, then you are not an atheist.
Atheist is just a term and honestly most people who identify themselves as atheists (myself included) don't say: 100% there is no God. What they say is, I'm like 99.9% certain there is no God, because there is no evidence and the idea itself doesn't really make sense.
If I asked you if UFO's existed wouldn't you say no? Now I could argue that there are objects that fit a certain definition (Unidentified flying objects), but this is changing the meaning of the question, because it was implied that I meant Alien spacecraft. This is what you are trying to argue in this debate.
Additionally, if legitimate evidence of alien spacecraft came to light, you would probably revise your views, correct? But what do you think the chances of this happening are?
So once again, I can't really be 100% sure of anything, but generally, unless someone can give me evidence my default position is the null hypothesis: it doesn't exist.
Atheist believe God does not exist, period. Proof that God exist will never even be taken into consideration, because to them there will never be any proof. If you accept the possibility, then you are not an atheist. Therefore atheist have an absolutist attitude in regards to God and have become a religion.
Atheists don't believe in god. Bald isn't a hair colour no matter how similar "invisible" is to "black."
I have never, in my entire life, met an atheist who "worshipped" a scientist. Attempts to make these silly kinds of statements are usually made by people who want to equate atheism to a religion, so they can then declare something along the lines of "Welll, I have faith in my beliefs and you have faith in yourt beliefs so that's the same thing!!! Nyah Nyah!"... as if all types of "faith" and "belief" were of the same nature.
Down voted, reason a lie. Proof and evidence says so, period. This isn't not even disputable, it is fact. The very same fact that makes you an atheist. To dispute this is to dispute all facts. Where now is your proof God does not exist?
Did I use the words " worship in the way" in my post?
I don't believe I did. Let me check... nope. Not there. Just plain old "worship".
If you want to make an argument that is based on diluting the meaning of "worship" to the point where anything held in any level of confidence or esteem is "worshipped" as a "god" you can do that. You're not really accomplishing anything except robbing the concept of worship and gods of any real meaning, but if that's what you want to do... whatever.
It is only the atheist that refuse to acknowledge other definitions of god. Following only those of the strictest religions and taking the literal meaning of the Bible as their own belief. " You shall have no other gods before me." This is why atheist argue that their is only one god, because they believe there is only one.
Following only those of the strictest religions and taking the literal meaning of the Bible as their own belief. " You shall have no other gods before me." This is why atheist argue that their is only one god, because they believe there is only one.
Are you going for really insanely wrong?
Atheism is lack of belief in god, so your argument makes no sense.
This was a joke right? Having a little fun? Reading my post in which I explained why it would be ridiculous to make this exact argument and then just making it anyway with no attempt to rebut anything I said?
YOU have just turned teachers, scientists, firemen, professional athletes, parents, engineers, writers, philosophers, businessmen, anyone who is really good at their job, etc.... into "gods" by defining the term so loosely it has become meaningless.
Congratulations. In this case you still haven't established scientists are "the gods" of atheism. You've just argued pretty much anything can be the god of anyone. Scientists are some gods of atheism! So are the quarterbacks of their favorite football teams! Oh, and so are their 9th grade English teachers they really liked! We are constructing a massive atheist pantheon!!!
I've noticed a tendency in theists, particularly the devout, to think of matters of authority as worship. Where a person might respect an eminent expert, the theist sees worshipping a leader, when a person congregates with others of similar interests, the theist sees a church, when the person is passionate in their views, the theist sees religion.
In other words, the question of scientists being gods is a mistake based on theists imposing their values on others.
Most Christians refer to their priests and pastors as figures of authority, (a biased authority at that) and more often than not they believe what they believe because they believe the figure of authority is THE authority for their belief.
This is no different than scientists as shepherds of sheep.
After all, if the sheep are so knowledgeable of the sciences of their beliefs, which are taught by scientists, they would stop referencing some other man’s knowledge as a justification for their beliefs.
Consider:
God exists because the consensus of theologians declares he does; although the sheep have not examined enough evidence to justify authoritative knowledge.
Anthropogenic global warming is a fact because the scientific consensus declares it is; although the sheep have not examined enough evidence to justify authoritative knowledge.
Its not that they reference some other man's knowledge as a justification for their beliefs, its that they reference demonstrable, repeatable, valid data/evidence uncovered by some other men, and verified by many other men doing experiments, and which is open for anyone to verify. I can tell you some simple experiments, some theory that explains it and its limitations, and you yourself can become authoritative quickly within a small scientific domain by testing the theory yourself. Wanna do a projectile motion experiment? Those are fun.
Theologians don't have demonstrable, repeatable and sound evidence for god; they might have a few decent trys at logical arguments(which most if not all can be shown as bad) All they have is emotion and social forces to propagate their views.
Perhaps i should of mention how Anthropogenic global warming has demonstrable evidence, repeatable data, and valid arguments since i was downvoted. Projectile thing was just easier.
1.man is capable of influencing the atmosphere, for example the ozone hole. The ozone hole is repeatable and demonstrable(both in controlled experiments and in the world if we're not smart). The chemical formula for the reaction is a sound argument itself for the process. The ozone hole is analogous to global warming.(valid logic)
2. There is more co2 being released into the air because of man then there would be without man(measurable/ demonstrable). This additional amount is not all being absorbed by plants and bacteria (measurable/ demonstrable). This additional amount not absorbed is enough to Theoretically cause a greenhouse effect.( valid logic)
3. Theoretically enough c02 could cause a greenhouse effect(valid logic), temperature has risen over a longerish time period(measurable/demonstrable), we found an effect which corresponds to a theoretical cause(demonstrable/measurable; ie a model which predicts it. Thus we say the model is accurate unless our model is found by other facts to be incomplete or not capable of accurate predicting as it should be.
Not only did you completely change topics mid-stream, but you are assuming that because he used the term "greenhouse effect" he is saying the entire earth is a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect is (as I'm sure you're aware) simply a way of stating that gases trap the sun's energy in the earth's atmosphere much in the same way as a ray of sun gets trapped in a greenhouse.
And as for your intial point, that global warming is only true because scientists say it is, I will agree that the same is true for God/preists...however, can the same be said for gravity? Or for the motion and orbit of the planets, or the function of evolution, or the incomprehensible amount of things that repeatable experimentation can prove?
The name "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer. The effect is named by analogy to greenhouses because both limit the rate of thermal energy flowing out, but the mechanisms by which heat is keep in are different.
Its not that they reference some other man's knowledge as a justification for their beliefs, its that they reference demonstrable, repeatable, valid data/evidence uncovered by some other men, and verified by many other men doing experiments, and which is open for anyone to verify.
…and which is open for anyone to verify.
The sheeple don’t verify anything but talking points. However if they were to evaluate the evidence and arrive at a contradictory conclusion, they would be derided by their peers and authorities (scientific or theological). And by virtue of the fact that most people strive to be a member of something that is considered “intelligent” they simply keep their mouths shut and their minds prostrated. Consequently, that is why most of them appeal to the authority of another’s knowledge as the chief justification for their beliefs.
Think of it like this: they don’t verify the evidence for a justification of why they believe what they believe, but they certainly believe the authorities are to be believed.
But in contrast there are some among us who are not sheeple. Albeit, are you aware of what happens to a scientist in the field of evolutionary biology who arrives at a conclusion which contradicts the theory of evolution? Are you also aware of what happens to a pastor who arrives at a conclusion that contradicts the orthodoxy of the sect of Christianity he was ordained to minister?
Answer: Their funding is pulled because their conclusions do not conform to, or confirm, the conclusions for which they were hired and appointed.
Theologians don't have demonstrable, repeatable and sound evidence for god; they might have a few decent trys at logical arguments(which most if not all can be shown as bad) All they have is emotion and social forces to propagate their views.
What makes you think you know what is necessary as evidence of God’s existence? Logically, you must know what is evidence of god’s existence in order to deny the attribute of existence of that subject.
The denial of God’s existence must logically be based upon some sort of knowledge of what is denied.
Here is an example which expresses the same problem.
Person ‘A’ asserts that person ‘D’ does not exist.
When asked about the identity of person D, person A replies: “Sir, I don’t know the identity of person D, but I am convinced if person D exists I would know its identity. And hence because I do not know its identity, that person cannot exist.”
When asked another question, person A replies: “I am the only person who can prove that I exist. After all, is it not absurd to think that the proof of my existence is subject to someone who is not me? Furthermore, I have no burden to prove to anyone I exist, I simply exist regardless of what others do or don’t know about me. But, if I introduce myself to someone they should know I exist.”
The sheeple don’t verify anything but talking points. However if they were to evaluate the evidence and arrive at a contradictory conclusion, they would be derided by their peers and authorities (scientific or theological). And by virtue of the fact that most people strive to be a member of something that is considered “intelligent” they simply keep their mouths shut and their minds prostrated. Consequently, that is why most of them appeal to the authority of another’s knowledge as the chief justification for their beliefs.
That's not how science works however. It's a highly competitive enterprise. This is another key difference between religion and science. Religion must intimidate dissidents, and keep everyone in line. Science welcomes criticism as long as you follow the rules of academic integrity.
Albeit, are you aware of what happens to a scientist in the field of evolutionary biology who arrives at a conclusion which contradicts the theory of evolution?
The simple answer is, they don't. The theory works.
The complicated answer is that they don't arrive at conclusions that contradict evolution unless they use shoddy experimental methods, create a strawman of evolution and contradict that, or violate the basic standards of academic integrity. Then once they are caught, they are as expected ridiculed for being unable to keep their personal prejudices out of their research. They then whine and complain to news outlets who edit out the inconvenient parts of the story (the parts where the scientist lied in their research, for example) and publish the information in the front pages of creationist propaganda mills.
The denial of God’s existence must logically be based upon some sort of knowledge of what is denied.
Here is an example which expresses the same problem.
Person ‘A’ asserts that person ‘D’ does not exist.
When asked about the identity of person D, person A replies: “Sir, I don’t know the identity of person D, but I am convinced if person D exists I would know its identity. And hence because I do not know its identity, that person cannot exist.”
Good point. However you must therefore be able to provide a complete description of god (who he is, what he is made of, how he got here, how he can do what he does, a picture, a biography, etc.). It's not enough to simply say "He made the universe!" (that's only describing something he did, not his identity).
Science welcomes criticism as long as you follow the rules of academic integrity.
I noticed you changed the subject from ‘scientists’ to ‘science’ as an attempt to divert the force of my argument.
Also, I suppose you are aware of the fact that ‘scientists’ are not immune to the criticism of their peers. Nevertheless, science is nothing more than an abstract term attached to what we recognize as knowledge. Science has no opinion. But, scientists do have an opinion which is called “science”.
Why do so many people reference ‘Science’ as though it is some form of entity that exists independently from people?
The complicated answer is that they don't arrive at conclusions that contradict evolution unless they use shoddy experimental methods, create a strawman of evolution and contradict that, or violate the basic standards of academic integrity. Then once they are caught, they are as expected ridiculed for being unable to keep their personal prejudices out of their research. They then whine and complain to news outlets who edit out the inconvenient parts of the story (the parts where the scientist lied in their research, for example) and publish the information in the front pages of creationist propaganda mills.
So who is correct?
The exiled scientist can use every premise you named as a valid argument to justify the results of his experiment. How do “you” know he is wrong without examining his hypothesis and the test of the same?
(The method is scientific until the consensus of scientists decide what is or is not valid according to what is accepted at that time. After all, if scientists are determining the rules of “academic integrity” (integrity is meaningless, the Mafia too relies upon the sanctity of ‘integrity’), it stands to reason they too determine what fulfills their criteria. This is unavoidable.
Now back to the first question: How do you know the truth or falsity of their claims without knowing their hypothesis and the necessary experiments to test the same?
Your rebuttal blurs the line of a genetic fallacy.
However you must therefore be able to provide a complete description of god (who he is, what he is made of, how he got here, how he can do what he does, a picture, a biography, etc.). It's not enough to simply say "He made the universe!"
Okay, because you cannot provide a complete description of your Grandpa of 10,000 years ago, I will not accept your assertion he existed. Hell, a complete description is not falsifiable. It must not be…
Falsifiable: a trick of the mind the most people fall victim to.
I noticed you changed the subject from ‘scientists’ to ‘science’ as an attempt to divert the force of my argument.
I was speaking about the enterprise, because it wouldn't make sense if I equated the people as the enterprise. The statement still stands however.
Also, I suppose you are aware of the fact that ‘scientists’ are not immune to the criticism of their peers. Nevertheless, science is nothing more than an abstract term attached to what we recognize as knowledge. Science has no opinion. But, scientists do have an opinion which is called “science”.
The system is still a meritocracy. Bad ideas don't make it, because someone's always trying to make a career from knocking down someone else's research, or expanding upon it.
So who is correct?
The simple answer is that creationism never is.
The exiled scientist can use every premise you named as a valid argument to justify the results of his experiment. How do “you” know he is wrong without examining his hypothesis and the test of the same?
Two ways. The first is to see how his claims fit within established theory. Generally speaking components of theory fit together. If a component is wrong, it will leave unresolved questions, it will lack elegance. Second, see if the claim itself reveals a lack of knowledge about the subject. For example, a claim involving missing links, random chance, "problem for evolution" or Darwinism is almost certainly wrong.
Now back to the first question: How do you know the truth or falsity of their claims without knowing their hypothesis and the necessary experiments to test the same?
However, because of the open and collaborative nature of science, we can always view their hypotheses and research, and try repeating their results ourselves.
Okay, because you cannot provide a complete description of your Grandpa of 10,000 years ago, I will not accept your assertion he existed. Hell, a complete description is not falsifiable. It must not be…
My grandfather from ten thousand years ago can be ascertained by looking at my complete genome. A genome contains a history. Besides the fact that I am here, which could only happen if I had ancestors spanning hundreds of millions of years.
I'm challenging you to make a coherent, complete concept. God isn't coherent, it's nebulous. If you're going to argue for something, it should be coherent.
I'd say that these responses have it: atheists are not lexicographers!
'God' does not immediately indicate worship. 'God' can imply something which is held in high regard by a group of people. Seeing as how science is responsible - directly or indirectly - for the conversion of many theists to atheism; and how atheists believe that science, and thus scientists, prove their belief (or lack thereof), one would assume that they are held in high regard. Most religious arguments, when they are rebuked by an atheist, have something to do with science.
To rebuke most religious arguments, science is not needed. Science just gives an alternative answer/argument to the majority of bad religious arguments. Science allows people to say something other then: "the bible says so and thus it is" or "I don't know why". Most people eventually stop questioning at some point: so long as the unknowns are buried deep enough in what they think they know, their comfortable.
On some issues science allows for arguments grounded in empirical premises, which means you'll have to deny your own experience or at least a useful model which allows for prediction in order to deny the premises. which you would have to do to deny the conclusion if its a valid argument.
Atheism like Theism is a grey area with many variations of definition, from my experience some so called Atheists seem to worship science as their belief system.
But most are the sort who are looking for answers that science provides, a true Atheist will be skeptical of any answer given by science this skepticism will ease as proof is laid down. The Scientists are not Gods in any sense here as a God is not to be questioned.
A statement such as Scientists are the Gods of Atheism can only come from a Theist, as a Theist looks for the answer in an all mighty form where an Atheist looks for answers from their Scholars, Scholars who through learning and gathering of empirical evidence make realistic points about the origins of life. As these Scholars are fallible they can not be considered Gods.
I believe you took the word 'god' out of the context of the debate. Obviously scientists are not supernatural, simply that they seem to be held in similar esteem.
See the reference to Loki when it comes to hoaxes and fallibility.
Down voted, reason follows. A statement such as "Scientist are the Gods of atheism" can only come from a Theist is false. Every dictionary claims other-wise.
American Heritage #4 One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
Merriam-Webster #3 : a person or thing of supreme value
Here is the evidence. Where is that famous atheist logic?
I put forth a reason and I demand the same respect before you down vote. If you cannot post one, then that is your problem. Not mine.
Unlike religious people, however, we don't necessarily worship it and pray to it, however we do try and understand it, because we know that nature is what determines who we are, what our past was like, and what our future will bring.
Is that how you view a god; that which is worshipped?
How about these definitions:
American Heritage #4 One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
Merriam-Webster #3 : a person or thing of supreme value
a person or thing of supreme value
Seeing as how science is the 'supreme value' of atheism (science 'proves' atheism), then one would come to the conclusion that the one who proves science is held at an equal value, if not greater; thus, giving him a 'godlike' status.
P.S. Oughtn't, from an atheistic perspective, 'God' be spelled 'god'?
Correction, science is the god of atheism because science is impartial whereas scientists are partial even though it may be towards atheism; nonetheless, without science, scientists would be moot.
Without a belief in science, there would still be atheism. How? What would support this belief?
Without out a belief in God, what religions are there? The same ones. It would not alter the course of anything. He would still exist. If you didn't believe trees exist, would that change anything about trees.
Science doesn't support most of atheism to begin with. Logic does.
Without a belief in god, god would still be there(if he is there, which depending on your definition it likely isn't there; ultimately this is irrelevant to the current debate). With out a belief in god, religions would lack what they are centered and founded on. The basic concept central to religion would be absent. The only religions would be "religions" of the godless variety. If no one believed in the idea that there is a god to worship, pray to, serve for, etc. why would people congregate to worship, pray to, serve for, ect what they don't believe exists?
Casper, " If no one believed in the idea that there is a god to worship, pray to, serve for, etc. why would people congregate to worship, pray to, serve for, ect what they don't believe exists?" My proof that religions would still exist is based upon atheist. A group that claims God doesn't exist and then attempts to prove a non-existent god doesn't exist.
Without a belief in science, there would still be atheism. How? What would support this belief?
Without out a belief in God, what religions are there? The same ones. It would not alter the course of anything. He would still exist. If you didn't believe trees exist, would that change anything about trees.
Atheism and its variants have existed for centuries before science as we know it existed. Depending on the culture, variants between freethinkers, agnostics, and those who denied the claims of their religious brethren have existed since at least the time of the Greeks.
Plenty of scientists are religious and agree with religions. Science does not necessarily ensure the absence of religion, and even if it did, scientists are pretty far from what I would define as gods. They screw up plenty of the time, and they do not get people "worshipping" them. People simply agree with them. They're just people.
