Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"So a model that has dropped deity related models, and rejects deity related models in its process, is supposedly non atheistic, because deities have not yet been found?"
I don't recall saying that at all. I said science doesn't even relate to the question of whether god exists. Science certainly doesn't reject theistic views. That's straightforwardly false. Perhaps you should research topics before speaking on them?
"Wikipedia provides concise summaries of topics."
And that may be great for a layman. But it is not an academic source.
"Thus the discredit-based scenario you refer to is irrelevant."
No it isn't. If you use non-academic sources for academic conversations you will risk discrediting yourself.
"I bet you weren't aware of Wikipedia's accuracy, prior to expressing that misconception."
I had no idea what the accuracy of wikipedia was before this lol. It is irrelevant. I don't know why this needs to be repeated so many times. Wikipedia is not an academic source. Please use academic sources. These sources are peer-reviewed and reputable. Try looking through PhilPapers, JSTOR, and SEP.
You seem to be confusing a few things.
1. You confuse the reality that Wikipedia may be unsuitable for academic writing or research, with some false idea that Wikipedia doesn't concern academic sources. [See Wikipedia/academic use.]
2. You conflate Science's inability to detect supposed deities, as a way to haphazardly rule out that Science is atheistic, even despite clear evidence that Science disregards deities. [As seen where science dropped deity related models.... [astrology being an example]]
You may want to consider that Science need not make positive claims of the in-existence of deities, in order to reject belief in the existence of deities..
" You confuse the reality that Wikipedia may be unsuitable for academic writing or research, with some false idea that Wikipedia doesn't concern academic sources"
No I don't. Note again how I said you are perfectly free to use sources listed in wikipedia articles. But wikipedia itself is not an academic source. This is not complicated. Do not use non-academic sources for academic conversations.
"You conflate Science's inability to detect supposed deities, as a way to haphazardly rule out that Science is atheistic"
This is not a conflation. Science doesn't concern itself with the topic of theism.
"You may want to consider that Science need not make positive claims of the in-existence of deities, in order to reject belief in the existence of deities.."
First, science would have to take on the acceptance of a claim in order to be considered atheist. It would not be a positive claim obviously. The claim would be negative: "no gods exist". And we may want to clarify what we mean by science here. In one sense, we could be speaking of a set of methodologies for empirical study. In another sense, we could be referring to the collective body of research and theory within a community of scientists. Either way, science doesn't concern theism.
As the OP had long stated, Science doesn't concern theism, but atheism instead.
You finally seem to see that Science needn't make positive claims of the inexistence of God, in order to effectively reject belief in the existence of Gods, or reject unfalsifiable sequences such as deities, i.e. as is the broad definition of atheism seen on Wikipedia/atheism.
No again that is not what I said at all. You seem to be more concerned with spewing anti-intellectual drivel than having actual conversation. As such I will refrain from speaking to you.
And yet contrary to you, I have proposed sensible arguments, substantiated by evidence and valid citations.
You have provided zero sources thus far, arguing from feelings and memory. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Avant Brown: "I have proposed sensible arguments, substantiated by evidence and valid citations."
I have yet to see any.
rmfr
As the OP had long stated, Science doesn't concern theism, but atheism instead.
You finally seem to see that Science needn't make positive claims of the inexistence of God, in order to effectively reject belief in the existence of Gods, or reject unfalsifiable sequences such as deities, i.e. as is the broad definition of atheism seen on Wikipedia/atheism.
A... Science didn't drop astrology because it was "deity based", it dropped it because there was no evidence it worked. If something is deity based and you drop automatically out of hand, you're not doing science. To be "doing science" you have have to put it through the same tests and scrutiny you do for everything else. Basically, either astrology works or it doesn't, regardless of whether it's deity based or not.
B... Not all branches of astrology reference deities. Some are very materialistic, claiming that is the physical planets involved and nothing divine or supernatural.
A. Data shows otherwise; deity based models including astrology were demonstrably dropped, and replaced with non-deity based models, like astronomy. Non-deity models provided rich falsifiable information, that deity based models like Astrology failed to provide. [You may want to check out Wikipedia/falsifiability.]
B. Deities are entities that exclude the sort of verifiable/falsifiable features, seen in modern science.
C. Whether or not all branches exclude deities, all branches of astrology are rejected by modern science, including ones with deities. Science doesn't suddenly become non-atheistic, because it rejects branches that happen to ignore deities; as modern science would still additionally exclude deity aligned branches, which is the typical description of astrology.
If "science" drops an idea, hypothesis, or theory for no other reason than the fact that it is deity-based, without doing any testing or experiments or research, it is not science.
Period.
In astrology in general, people believe that certain planets in certain positions will alter who you are, your personality. Science has to ask "Is there any validity to this position?". Whether it's deity based or not is irrelevant.
At lot of things started out "deity based". Volcanoes, weather, eclipses, meteors.
1. Come now, deity based things are not dropped "for no reason". Deity models constitute unfalsiable sequences, and falsifiability is an important aspect of Science.
2. As seen in the OP, I underline that modern science emerged from protoscience or archaic science/religion related models. [This is no surprise, because mankind had not always had modern science]
That for example asthma was once mythically described, does not mean that Science currently subscribes to myths.
You won't find deity stuff in modern scientific equations or notations regarding volcanoes. You are clearly servicing a genetic fallacy thereafter.[See Wikipedia/genetic fallacy]
So much strawmanning here it's a fire hazard.
Someone makes a claim, "My god aligns the planets, and these planets then affect your personality."
What does science do?
First, you can dismiss the god claim because it's unfalsifiable. Maybe there is maybe there isn't, doesn't matter because we can't test for it.
The second part though can be tested. Maybe the planets really do affect a person's personality. If they don't you can drop the whole idea.
If it turns out though that really happens, science can then come up with a non-god explanation for how planets affect human personality. Maybe it's the gravity, maybe it's the radiation, who knows, but science will continue testing etc.. to come up with a theory.
Capiche?
My words from a later page:
Your classification of how God relates wrt astrology and planets is somewhat inaccurate, astrology underlines that planets actually occur through Godly will. Science atheistically rejects the model above.
Science rejects that planets align by a god's will.
But the claim that the planets' alignment affects people can't be "automatically" rejected by science without testing, because that claim can be falsified. Because until it's tested it's entirely possible that planets can affect people even if no gods or deities exist.
From actual evidence, I don't detect any relevance or sensible connection above, wrt my prior response.
LostLocke: "So much strawmanning here it's a fire hazard."
***everyone sees a tree carrying around a fire hose spraying a rainfall on the tree in all of Avant Brown's threads due to the amount of straw creating such huge fire hazards***
rmfr
The planets have Roman name's in science.
Science doesn't have an atheistic view, scientist can and do.
1. Wikipedia/astrology underlines that astrology concerns "a greek system of planetary gods". [You may interpret Wikipedia anyway you please.]
2. Science has demonstrably disregarded deities, i.e. entail a lack of belief in the existence of deities, i.e. science is atheistic. (See when astrology (which concerns deities.) was removed from modern science, replaced with astronomy, which disregards deities and planetary Gods, quite clearly.)
@ Avant Brown
The quote you are using is nowhere in the Wikipedia page you attribute.
Greek is the source for the names of the zodiac signs, NOT the planets.
Roman names of gods was used to the name planets.
Obviously, someone is stuck in a rut.
rmfr
1. On the contrary the expression is present on the Wikipedia page I earlier cited. See the fourth sentence, in this section of the same page.
1.b. See also Wikipedia/Planets in astrology.
2. You may want to google how to apply Ctrl+f, or equivalent commands for other devices you may be using.
@ Avant Brown
Your quote, "a greek system of planetary gods" is on neither page referenced.
And I have been using Ctrl+F longer than you have been alive.
rmfr
If you search for "Greek system of planetary Gods" as underlined in the OP, you're reasonably sure to find it on the same page.
Apparently you need more than the time you specified to properly develop your Ctrl + f skills. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It would also help if numb-witted child would properly quote things...
rmfr
See my reply above concerning Wikipedia's accuracy, and the reality that Wikipedia consists of valid references.
@ Avant Brown
And you seem to be confusing these two points:
rmfr
You seem to be suggesting that since Wikipedia may not be a reliable source for academic writing or research, it supposedly means Wikipedia is not an academic source at all. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
How did you come by that feeling [especially when Wikipedia is roughly 90%+ accurate, and reasonably growing more accurate]?
[See Wikipedia/academic use.]
@ Avant Brown
Because I am a scientist. A volcanologist working for Yellowstone. Wikipedia is NEVER used by scientists except when we are dealing with proselytizing Religious Absolutists (Digital or Philosophical) since actual scientific journal articles/papers tend to fly over most persons, especially Religious Absolutists, comprehension capabilities.
Ask any professional scientist whether Wikipedia is a "reliable source for academic writing or research" and every last one of them will laugh in your face. LOL in your face, Avant Brown (Blue Grey Brain).
As said, I use Wikipedia to link to certain subjects because it is "dumbed" down for most persons to be able to at least get a general understanding. However, I also tell others to always refer to the “See also,” “Notes,” “References,” “Further reading,” “Bibliography,” and/or “External links” sections for actual journal paper links.
rmfr
A Wikipedia page on quantum mechanics though "simplified", is still an academic source.
Why do you feel simplification yields non-academic results?
@ Avant Brown Turd
"A Wikipedia page on quantum mechanics though "simplified", is still an academic source."
You are missing the point null-brain. Wikipedia is NOT an academic resource. The best Wikipedia can hope for is being referential jumping point for TRUE scientific academic resources.
Where in hell did you learn English? Bazooka Joe?
rmfr
Pages