What does being athiest mean to you?

[sapphi_snake]

Netyaroze said:
@sapphisnake

Its not that simple if it would be there is nothing to talk about. First you need to differenciate between god and religion god explains nothing except the beginning he is not a world view he is just god a allmighty selfaware beeing. Science and god cant compete because there is nothing to compete. Science explains the world 100000 times better then religion. god explains nothing at all he is just the source of existence. You can perfectly well be scientist and believe in god actually alot of scientists do a lot of the stuff they handle is way more unbelievable then god. Here some links that proof my point 51% of scientists believe in god didnt change over the last century: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

They are less likely to believe in a deity then other people though but as you describe it it sounds like god and science doesnt work together because scientific principles make the concept of god somehow unreal. As I said science cant handle god because it would be unscientific. But that doesnt mean its not true or unlikely or whatever.

" Since god is unfalsifiable, it means that it logically cannot be considered to be a true concept"

You make really to much assumptions. Where does it say that a true concept must be falsifiable ? God is a perfectly legit concept just not a scientific one.

Your comments until now show me you are arguing science vs religion. Religion uses god that doesnt mean they have copyright on him Religion could be total BS that still says nothing about god.

The ideea that 'god is the source of existence' is a statement about the world that goes against what science says science. Ply And here is a link that proves otherwise. Scietists don't really believe in 'god', and certainly not leading scientists.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Heck, the only major scientist mentioned in the article you provided onyl started believing in 'god' because he didn't like the ideea of death, and if you read what led to him having, you can see that it wasn't anything rational (his god of the gaps arguments will make him a laughingstock in the future).

Not to mentin that that article spreads misinformation regarding Darwin, which leads me to believe the source is biased. All that was missing was the death bed conversion.

Where does it say that a true concept must be falsifiable ?

Falsifiability. You're the one who linked it and used it in your argument. Try to be consistent now.

Your comments until now show me you are arguing science vs religion. Religion uses god that doesnt mean they have copyright on him Religion could be total BS that still says nothing about god.

Religion invented god, and it does actually have a 'copyright' on it. Ouside of religion, what point does the whole concept even have? And outside of religion, there really isn't any 'evidence' of the existence of such a thing.