On the contrary, true science should not take any stance on whether God exists or not.
"Now now kids, as far as daddy is concerned you are both potential murderers"
"atheism": "a-" without "-theism" a belief about the specific nature of a deity.
CB: “Science, by its very nature, needs to be atheistic”
On the contrary, true science should not take any stance on whether God exists or not. Anyone who contends that atheism is not a religion (see definition for religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) is fooling themselves. God and science can coexist and in my opinion, must exist.
There should be no litmus test by the serious scientific community concerning one’s religious convictions.
I don't disagree. By atheistic, I mean that science should not consider the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being when looking for a particular answer.
There should be no litmus test by the serious scientific community concerning one’s religious convictions.
There isn't, AFAIK. There are many scientists with strongly held religious convictions.
“There should be no litmus test by the serious scientific community concerning one’s religious convictions.”
The converse is equally true, namely:
There should be no litmus test by the fundamentalist religious community concerning one’s scientific convictions.
Of course if the goose/gander rule were applied to science vs. religion threads a lot of people’s ignorance of religion and/or science wouldn’t be able to be displayed in such a splendid fashion, as there would be too little argument to reach critical mass.
On the contrary, true science should not take any stance on whether God exists or not.
"Now now kids, as far as daddy is concerned you are both potential murderers"
"atheism": "a-" without "-theism" a belief about the specific nature of a deity.