Science is inherently atheistic

131 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
"1. You are also ignoring the

"1. You are also ignoring the History of Science; you ignore that models concerning deities were dropped from modern science in the scientific revolution."

No one ignored the moronic inept idiotic statements made by the first scientists that brought God into their theories. THOSE THEORIES COULD NOT BE PROVED AND SO THEY WERE ABANDONED. Show me one God theory that has survived! Science does not survive on dogmatic beliefs. Unlike Religion.

" If deities suddenly become scientifically valid, then you could somehow begin to try to disregard that Science is atheistic."

Another inane comment. Calling science atheistic is like calling a clock atheistic. Atheism is about "BELIEF." Ask science if it believes in "this" god and science will ask you what the qualities are of the god you are asserting exists. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SCIENCE DOES NOT FIND A CLAIM FALSE? You give science the claim and it tests it. If it can not be tested it is called "unfalsifiable." It can not be proved false. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS TRUE. IT ONLY MEANS YOUR ASSERTION HAS NOT MET ANY REASONABLE STANDARD OF TESTABLE TRUTH.

Science is a method of inquiry that requires the suspension of belief to work. Science explores the facts and from facts it draws theories (models) about the facts. Science neither points to absolute truth or identifies things that are false. This is why the burden of proof is on the theist. Science is descriptive and not prescriptive. Only creationist BS (religion described as science is prescriptive.) A ROCK, A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA, A CUP OF WATER, IS NOT ATHEIST. There is nothing atheistic about science.

Blue Grey Brain's picture
"1. You are also ignoring the

"1. You are also ignoring the History of Science; you ignore that models concerning deities were dropped from modern science in the scientific revolution."

No one ignored the moronic inept idiotic statements made by the first scientists that brought God into their theories. THOSE THEORIES COULD NOT BE PROVED AND SO THEY WERE ABANDONED. Show me one God theory that has survived! Science does not survive on dogmatic beliefs. Unlike Religion.

" If deities suddenly become scientifically valid, then you could somehow begin to try to disregard that Science is atheistic."

Another inane comment. Calling science atheistic is like calling a clock atheistic. Atheism is about "BELIEF." Ask science if it believes in "this" god and science will ask you what the qualities are of the god you are asserting exists. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SCIENCE DOES NOT FIND A CLAIM FALSE? You give science the claim and it tests it. If it can not be tested it is called "unfalsifiable." It can not be proved false. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS TRUE. IT ONLY MEANS YOUR ASSERTION HAS NOT MET ANY REASONABLE STANDARD OF TESTABLE TRUTH.

Science is a method of inquiry that requires the suspension of belief to work. Science explores the facts and from facts it draws theories (models) about the facts. Science neither points to absolute truth or identifies things that are false. This is why the burden of proof is on the theist. Science is descriptive and not prescriptive. Only creationist BS (religion described as science is prescriptive.) A ROCK, A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA, A CUP OF WATER, IS NOT ATHEIST. There is nothing atheistic about science.

1. Science definitely identifies that things are false, i.e. Science can falsify things. This is one of the most important aspects or pillars of Science. [Wikipedia/Falsifiability]

2. Atheism describes atheism in the broadest science, as the absence of belief. See my prior responses regarding how the age of enlightenment unavoidably attempted to avoid religious endeavour and deities.

Care to answer my question below:

Blue Grey Brain's words.
Why do you think astrology, which concerns deities, was replaced by astronomy, which doesn't concern deities? [See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy]

Sheldon's picture
"Blue Grey Brain's words.

"Blue Grey Brain's words.
Why do you think astrology, which concerns deities, was replaced by astronomy, which doesn't concern deities? [See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy]"

Good quote I like this. It reminds me of Laplace responding to Napoleon's enquiry into his formula for the mechanical operation of the universe, "what about god?" and Laplace responding that god was not required for his formula to work.

Science deals in objective empirical evidence, if any objective evidence could be demonstrated for any deity then science could and would examine it, so far nada. Religions don't deal in objective empirical evidence, it's as simple as that.

Blue Grey Brain's picture
"Blue Grey Brain's words.

"Blue Grey Brain's words.
Why do you think astrology, which concerns deities, was replaced by astronomy, which doesn't concern deities? [See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy]"

Good quote I like this. It reminds me of Laplace responding to Napoleon's enquiry into his formula for the mechanical operation of the universe, "what about god?" and Laplace responding that god was not required for his formula to work.

Science deals in objective empirical evidence, if any objective evidence could be demonstrated for any deity then science could and would examine it, so far nada. Religions don't deal in objective empirical evidence, it's as simple as that.

It does appear simple, but unfortunately many of this thread's participants seem to miss that.

Sheldon's picture
Science is defined as the

Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. So all supernatural and unfalsifiable claims are by definition unscientific.

This doesn't mean science makes assertions about such claims, it means they are viewed as "not even wrong" and can't therefore advance scientific knowledge, even if they are false, as there no scientific way to evidence this, which is wht unfalsifiable means of course.

However religions and the religious make plenty of claims that are demonstrably falsifiable and science can certainly assess these. Like the research that showed intercessory prayer when assess in properly double blind clinical trials showed it had no discernible effect. Then of course the religious won't accept the evidence, and instead pour fourth with desperate rationalisations, such as "god can't be tested". You can't help but notice this objection wasn't an issue until it failed, and of course would have not been used had the evidence supported those beliefs. Selection bias is something all superstitious people must have to wave away cognitive dissonance. Selection bias is anathema to the scientific method, make of that what you will.

I don't think it is accurate to describe science as atheistic, but rather as secular. It's like claiming science is aunicorn endeavour.

Blue Grey Brain's picture
Science is defined as the

Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. So all supernatural and unfalsifiable claims are by definition unscientific.

This doesn't mean science makes assertions about such claims, it means they are viewed as "not even wrong" and can't therefore advance scientific knowledge, even if they are false, as there no scientific way to evidence this, which is wht unfalsifiable means of course.

However religions and the religious make plenty of claims that are demonstrably falsifiable and science can certainly assess these. Like the research that showed intercessory prayer when assess in properly double blind clinical trials showed it had no discernible effect. Then of course the religious won't accept the evidence, and instead pour fourth with desperate rationalisations, such as "god can't be tested". You can't help but notice this objection wasn't an issue until it failed, and of course would have not been used had the evidence supported those beliefs. Selection bias is something all superstitious people must have to wave away cognitive dissonance. Selection bias is anathema to the scientific method, make of that what you will.

I don't think it is accurate to describe science as atheistic, but rather as secular. It's like claiming science is aunicorn endeavour.

I upvoted your response, because I mostly agree.

However, Wikipedia/Atheism broadly describes atheism to mean lack of belief. I refer to the broad description of atheism thereafter.

Cognostic's picture
You keep giving definitions

You keep giving definitions that completely debunk your claims. When religions make claims SCIENCE INVESTIGATES THEM THE EXACT SAME WAY IT WOULD INVESTIGATE ANY CLAIM.

Blue Grey Brain's picture
You keep giving definitions

You keep giving definitions that completely debunk your claims. When religions make claims SCIENCE INVESTIGATES THEM THE EXACT SAME WAY IT WOULD INVESTIGATE ANY CLAIM.

Your feelings are noted, but facts don't care about your feelings. I don't make any case that Science says Gods don't exist, but I do trivially show that Science rejects belief in the existence of deities, just as the broad definition of atheism underlines.

You are conflating the fact that Science can analyse the truth value of religion, with some false idea that Science is therefore not non-religious.

Sheldon's picture
I get what you're saying, but

I get what you're saying, but I still think secular is a better way to describe science, and it's methods, rather than atheistic. It's just that describing science as atheist doesn't really tell me much about science. It's like claiming car maintenance is atheistic, I mean car maintenance works perfectly well without a deity, so does science.

Describing science as atheist seems like a claim might be being implied on behalf of science to me. I wonder if we're going beyond what epistemology allows. Strictly speaking a rock is atheist, but this tells us nothing about rocks or the existence of deities. Something has to be sentient to hold a belief, but insentient things cannot by definition hold beliefs.

Blue Grey Brain's picture
I get what you're saying, but

I get what you're saying, but I still think secular is a better way to describe science, and it's methods, rather than atheistic. It's just that describing science as atheist doesn't really tell me much about science. It's like claiming car maintenance is atheistic, I mean car maintenance works perfectly well without a deity, so does science.

Describing science as atheist seems like a claim might be being implied on behalf of science to me. I wonder if we're going beyond what epistemology allows. Strictly speaking a rock is atheist, but this tells us nothing about rocks or the existence of deities. Something has to be sentient to hold a belief, but insentient things cannot by definition hold beliefs.

I see, and since I don't detect any error while having the position that models can be atheistic too, I detect that data shows that Science can indeed "reject" unfalsibaible deity aligned concepts, while avoiding the proposition of positive claims of the inexistence of deities.

  • As an example, consider "retarded kernels". Unfortunately, some humans are born with mental challenges, and that word may be applicable to those medically challenged persons. However, the adjective is also applicable to models in physics, such as the kernels I earlier mentioned.
  • See Fokker–Planck equations for simple non‐Markovian systems, including "retarded kernels".

    arakish's picture
    But as others have said, I

    But as others have said, I also agree that atheism and science have nothing in common. Using Sheldon's definitions:

    "Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in any deities."

    "Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. So all supernatural and unfalsifiable claims are by definition unscientific."

    The only link between science and atheism is that as a person studies more and more science, also depending on what science but mostly into the physical sciences, a person will tend to become atheistic. That is the ONLY commonality between science and atheism. Science is NOT inherently atheistic. Rather, science tends to cause atheism due to the need for the mental faculties of critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought. That is also the reason why most persons will lose their religiosity as they progress through secular university learning. When a person begins applying those mental faculties to their religion, they begin to see how religion is a lie and its texts are nothing more than a plagiarized collection of myths and legends.

    Additionally, as was the case with me, some persons are born with a brain and mind that just does NOT think like most other persons. As me dad told me, "Your brain and mind thinks like a computer. If it is not logical or rational, it does not compute." That was also the problem I had with humor. It was not until I was married and me wife helped explain humor that I actually started finding humor funny.

    rmfr

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    "Atheism is nothing more than

    "Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in any deities."

    "Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. So all supernatural and unfalsifiable claims are by definition unscientific."

    The only link between science and atheism is that as a person studies more and more science, also depending on what science but mostly into the physical sciences, a person will tend to become atheistic. That is the ONLY commonality between science and atheism. Science is NOT inherently atheistic. Rather, science tends to cause atheism due to the need for the mental faculties of critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought. That is also the reason why most persons will lose their religiosity as they progress through secular university learning. When a person begins applying those mental faculties to their religion, they begin to see how religion is a lie and its texts are nothing more than a plagiarized collection of myths and legends.

    Additionally, as was the case with me, some persons are born with a brain and mind that just does NOT think like most other persons. As me dad told me, "Your brain and mind thinks like a computer. If it is not logical or rational, it does not compute." That was also the problem I had with humor. It was not until I was married and me wife helped explain humor that I actually started finding humor funny.

    rmfr

  • Note: Atheism broadly means lack of belief in deities, according to Wikipedia/atheism.
  • Note that Wikipedia/astrology states that astrology may be seen as a “Greek system of planetary Gods”, see also Wikipedia/planets in astrology, which concerns deities. It becomes quite clear here that Modern science having dropped astrology, disregards deities, where Modern Science need not make any positive claims about the in-existence of deities, although Modern Science clearly rejects belief in deities i.e. Modern Science is inherently atheistic.
  • arakish's picture
    @ Avant Brown (Blue Grey

    @ Avant Brown (Blue Grey Brainless)

    "see also Wikipedia/planets in astrology, which concerns deities"

    You do realize that a neutron star is beginning to look like a marshmallow compared to your brain's density? Astrology is NOT concerned with deities. Rather it is concerned with the position of the planets in relation to the zodiac. And the astrologers have the zodiac wrong. There are 13 zodiac signs, NOT 12. Ophiucus is the one they deleted.

    The only thing referencing deities in astrology is the names of the zodiac signs and the planets. Get your head out of your ass young child. Adults are speaking here. As me dad always said, "Kids are best seen and not heard." Thus, sit back, shut up, and you might learn something.

    rmfr

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    You do realize that a neutron

    You do realize that a neutron star is beginning to look like a marshmallow compared to your brain's density? Astrology is NOT concerned with deities. Rather it is concerned with the position of the planets in relation to the zodiac. And the astrologers have the zodiac wrong. There are 13 zodiac signs, NOT 12. Ophiucus is the one they deleted.

    The only thing referencing deities in astrology is the names of the zodiac signs and the planets. Get your head out of your ass young child. Adults are speaking here.

    1. One of the reasons why your responses are sub-par, is that they consist mostly of unevidenced feelings. How long does it take to provide references in your responses? Perhaps it would be optimal, to instead of presenting your feelings, present sensible arguments, and include citations, as I've been doing since this thread was created. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    2. For example, what do you make of the following line, from Wikipedia/astrology?:

    "Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events." ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    arakish's picture
    @ Avant Brown

    @ Avant Brown

    Why? I am using the same sources you are. And you just proved my point.

    Avant Brown: "Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events."

    rmfr

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @ Avant Brown

    @ Avant Brown

    Why? I am using the same sources you are. And you just proved my point.

    Avant Brown: "Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events."

    rmfr

    Remind me of what your point is?

    arakish's picture
    @ Avant Brown

    @ Avant Brown

    Go take some ESL classes.

    rmfr

    xenoview's picture
    The planets have Roman god

    The planets have Roman god name's, not Greek ones.
    Science doesn't try to prove or disprove a god exist.
    Science doesn't have an Atheistic world view.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    The planets have Roman god

    The planets have Roman god name's, not Greek ones.
    Science doesn't try to prove or disprove a god exist.
    Science doesn't have an Atheistic world view.

    Wikipedia/astrology underlines that astrology concerns "a greek system of planetary gods". [You may interpret Wikipedia anyway you please.]

    Also, note that Modern science has clearly dropped deity related things, such as astrology.

    Sheldon's picture
    "Also, note that Modern

    "Also, note that Modern science has clearly dropped deity related things, such as astrology."

    I think science does not pursue anything that no evidence can be demonstrated to support, since it can't examine anything if there is no empirical evidence to examine. Science doesn't make assertions based on, or speculate on unfalsifiable claims. They are simply rejected as unscientific.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    "Also, note that Modern

    "Also, note that Modern science has clearly dropped deity related things, such as astrology."

    I think science does not pursue anything that no evidence can be demonstrated to support, since it can't examine anything if there is no empirical evidence to examine. Science doesn't make assertions based on, or speculate on unfalsifiable claims. They are simply rejected as unscientific.

    And that my friend, is why Science is inherently atheistic.

    Note your use of your phrasing including the word "rejected" above. The context in which you apply rejection in your response, reasonably aligns with the OP well.

    Science can "reject" unfalsibaible deity aligned concepts, while avoiding the proposition of positive claims of the inexistence of deities.

    arakish's picture
    @ Avant Brown

    @ Avant Brown

    "And that my friend, is why Science is inherently atheistic."

    SCIENCE IS NOT INHERENTLY ATHEISTIC!! As said, a neutron star is definitely looking to be light and fluffy.

    Science is nothing more than a collection of data that has been proven to correct within our current understanding. That is all science is. Nothing more, nothing less. That information is gathered by using the Scientific Method. The best tool for finding and discovering the True Truth.

    Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Neither has anything to do with the other. I know some atheists who are not even close to being able to understand anything scientific. If I discuss even simple geology with them, it does like a 747. However, they are still reasonable and rational enough to realize that all religions are bullshit lies.

    Your religion is no different. Quit proselytizing. You are singing to the wrong choir.

    rmfr

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @ Avant Brown

    @ Avant Brown

    "And that my friend, is why Science is inherently atheistic."

    SCIENCE IS NOT INHERENTLY ATHEISTIC!! As said, a neutron star is definitely looking to be light and fluffy.

    Science is nothing more than a collection of data that has been proven to correct within our current understanding. That is all science is. Nothing more, nothing less. That information is gathered by using the Scientific Method. The best tool for finding and discovering the True Truth.

    Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Neither has anything to do with the other. I know some atheists who are not even close to being able to understand anything scientific. If I discuss even simple geology with them, it does like a 747. However, they are still reasonable and rational enough to realize that all religions are bullshit lies.

    Your religion is no different. Quit proselytizing. You are singing to the wrong choir.

    rmfr

    1. Science concerns rejecting unfalsifiable things, including deities. [Wikipedia/atheism ... Wikipedia/Falsifiability].

    2. There is a regime called Psuedoscience, which is devoted to the unfalsifiable. It seems you fancy the unfalsifiable, but this doesn't warrant that Science does. [Wikipedia/Pseudoscience].

    3. I am an atheist, and I don't subscribe to any religion. When you are demonstrated wrong by facts, it doesn't mean the one who showed you to be wrong worships said facts.

    arakish's picture
    @ Avant Brown Turd (Blue Grey

    @ Avant Brown Turd (Blue Grey Brainless)

    ABT (BGB): "Science concerns rejecting unfalsifiable things, including deities."

    True. But that still does NOT make science inherently atheistic. PhD candidate and you cannot understand English. Again...

    Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Science is nothing more than a collection of data that has been proven to correct within our current understanding. That is all science is. Nothing more, nothing less. That information is gathered by using the Scientific Method. The best tool for finding and discovering the True Truth.

    NOTHING inherent in either one for the other.

    I hope you have kept all your receipts for your doctoral dissertation payments. I would demand a refund since you ain't learned a damn thing.

    ABT (BGB): "There is a regime called Psuedoscience, which is devoted to the unfalsifiable. It seems you fancy the unfalsifiable, but this doesn't warrant that Science does."

    And you have been spewing it rather deeply across four threads. Why do you think I am carrying a fire hose sprinkling rain on me self?

    ABT (BGB): "I am an atheist, and I don't subscribe to any religion. When you are demonstrated wrong by facts, it doesn't mean the one who showed you to be wrong worships said facts."

    You are a Religious Absolutist Apologist. You may not believe in other religions, but you have created your own. You wrote, and I am cherry-picking, "worships said facts," then why are you proselytizing so damned hard. Although you are spewing bullshit about AI, replicating universes, science is atheism, and AI cars that still drive worse than a 3 year old.

    All you have done is prove yourself religious, just into computers and SI.

    rmfr

    EDIT: fixed misspelling

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @ Avant Brown Turd (Blue Grey

    @ Avant Brown Turd (Blue Grey Brainless)

    ABT (BGB): "Science concerns rejecting unfalsifiable things, including deities."

    True. But that still does NOT make science inherently atheistic. PhD candidate and you cannot under English. Again...

    Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Science is nothing more than a collection of data that has been proven to correct within our current understanding. That is all science is. Nothing more, nothing less. That information is gathered by using the Scientific Method. The best tool for finding and discovering the True Truth.

    NOTHING inherent in either one for the other.

    I hope you have kept all your receipts for your doctoral dissertation payments. I would demand a refund since you ain't learned a damn thing.

    ABT (BGB): "There is a regime called Psuedoscience, which is devoted to the unfalsifiable. It seems you fancy the unfalsifiable, but this doesn't warrant that Science does."

    And you have been spewing it rather deeply across four threads. Why do you think I am carrying a fire hose sprinkling rain on me self?

    ABT (BGB): "I am an atheist, and I don't subscribe to any religion. When you are demonstrated wrong by facts, it doesn't mean the one who showed you to be wrong worships said facts."

    You are a Religious Absolutist Apologist. You may not believe in other religions, but you have created your own. You wrote, and I am cherry-picking, "worships said facts," then why are you proselytizing so damned hard. Although you are spewing bullshit about AI, replicating universes, science is atheism, and AI cars that still drive worse than a 3 year old.

    All you have done is prove yourself religious, just into computers and SI.

    rmfr

    1. You're yet to provide any opposition, as to the reasonably unavoidable situation, that Science is atheistic.

    2. I doubt California would grant permits for 3 year olds to drive, especially given that Google waymo self driving car was granted permit from California to operate without people in driver's seat.

    arakish's picture
    Thanks for proving you do not

    Thanks for proving you do not truly read other persons posts.

    rmfr

    abby normal's picture
    An obvious point of the

    An obvious point of the contention is the definition of atheism you've used. It's probably best to avoid using wikipedia if you really want to deal with things rigorously. Try using SEP or other credible sources on philosophy of religion. You're free to browse the sources on a wikipedia page if you want. From SEP "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."

    Obviously science doesn't operate under the acceptance of atheism. Nor in fact, does it operate under a lack of belief in god. Science really has nothing to do with the question of theism/atheism so I don't know why you're shoving them together.

    "However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of things including religion"

    But major parts of religion clearly can't be answered by scientific tools. So why would this be a good thing to try to do?

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    An obvious point of the

    An obvious point of the contention is the definition of atheism you've used. It's probably best to avoid using wikipedia if you really want to deal with things rigorously. Try using SEP or other credible sources on philosophy of religion. You're free to browse the sources on a wikipedia page if you want. From SEP "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."

    Obviously science doesn't operate under the acceptance of atheism. Nor in fact, does it operate under a lack of belief in god. Science really has nothing to do with the question of theism/atheism so I don't know why you're shoving them together.

    "However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of things including religion"

    But major parts of religion clearly can't be answered by scientific tools. So why would this be a good thing to try to do?

    1. So, Science, which for example, has demonstrably dropped deity related things, such as astrology, supposedly does not reject belief in the existence of Gods? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    2. Unbeknownst to you Wikipedia is reasonably +90% accurate, and is growing in accuracy, and it consists of several peer reviewed references. You may want to google what valid scientific references are.

    abby normal's picture
    "So, Science, which for

    "So, Science, which for example, has demonstrably dropped deity related things, such as astrology, supposedly does not reject belief in the existence of Gods?"

    Yes? There is no accepted view in science on whether gods exist. That is a conversation left to philosophy.

    "Unbeknownst to you Wikipedia is reasonably +90% accurate"

    Lol

    "and is growing in accuracy, and it consists of several peer reviewed references."

    Clearly you didn't read my entire post. Ya know the part where I say this exact thing: "You're free to browse the sources on a wikipedia page if you want."

    Wikipedia, however "accurate" it may be for the layman is not a rigorous academic source. As such, you shall not cite it in academic conversations on pain of being discredited. Please use academic sources.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    "So, Science, which for

    "So, Science, which for example, has demonstrably dropped deity related things, such as astrology, supposedly does not reject belief in the existence of Gods?"

    Yes? There is no accepted view in science on whether gods exist. That is a conversation left to philosophy.

    "Unbeknownst to you Wikipedia is reasonably +90% accurate"

    Lol

    "and is growing in accuracy, and it consists of several peer reviewed references."

    Clearly you didn't read my entire post. Ya know the part where I say this exact thing: "You're free to browse the sources on a wikipedia page if you want."

    Wikipedia, however "accurate" it may be for the layman is not a rigorous academic source. As such, you shall not cite it in academic conversations on pain of being discredited. Please use academic sources.

    1. So a model, namely Science, that has clearly dropped deity related models.... [astrology being an example], and rejects deity related models in its process, is supposedly non atheistic, because deities have not been found? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    2. Wikipedia provides concise/accurate summaries of topics, including sources which one may peruse to derive additional detail. Thus the discredit-based scenario you refer to is irrelevant. I bet you weren't aware of Wikipedia's accuracy, prior to expressing that misconception.

    Pages

    Donating = Loving

    Heart Icon

    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.

    Or make a one-time donation in any amount.