nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: +
→'Weak Atheism': Why is that the default? The default should be the other way.
::And the reason that the science is done on the basis of there being no God is there is no solid, objective proof that there is a God, and, thus, to follow proper scientific procedures and processes, you cannot base anything on the idea there is a God until you prove there is a God. Thus, 'weak atheism' and science follow exactly the same principles and procedures. If you come with solid, objective proof of God, then you can start doing science on the basis of that 'fact', and most 'weak atheists' wouldn't be atheists of any kind any more. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::And the reason that the science is done on the basis of there being no God is there is no solid, objective proof that there is a God, and, thus, to follow proper scientific procedures and processes, you cannot base anything on the idea there is a God until you prove there is a God. Thus, 'weak atheism' and science follow exactly the same principles and procedures. If you come with solid, objective proof of God, then you can start doing science on the basis of that 'fact', and most 'weak atheists' wouldn't be atheists of any kind any more. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::: If there is no proof of a God, and no proof of no God, why is "no God" the default option? And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God, and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)