Dont understand atheists

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicm17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
samiam1611 said:
“A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.”
I mean sure, some things are known beyond a reasonable doubt and are regarded as fact like germ “theory”: microorganisms can cause disease. You don’t doubt that do you? So why do you doubt other scientific explanations? (If that is what you are saying. You didn’t quite say that, I am just kind of inferring.)
Click to expand...
Because I am aware that scientific knowledge and discovery changes and that ‘facts’ also change. We can have a theory of X but my expectation is that the theory will eventually evolve, maybe radically, maybe not. That is why I can never take it as fact. And my experience is that many people don’t understand that and use science to confirm their assumptions which are essentially theological questions.
 
followingtheway said:
Well =/…

^
|
|
|
Yeah that. :sad_yes: You’re kinda defending them 😮
Click to expand...
In a way. I’m not an atheist, but I don’t think I need to characterize all atheists as fools for my own views to be reasonable.

The fact is, I find most people, religious or not, do not think much about metaphysics, or how we can know things, or what holds the physical universe together. Most people follow what they are taught, or what the dominant culture teaches, or what appeals to their emotions or temperament. Most people have ideas about these things that are mixed up or illogical.

I do think that scientific materialism is a bit dumb. But I wouldn’t call some of the world-views that many people would today call “atheist” as dumb, and people who were very smart (smarter than me) thought they were sensible or reasonable.

What I find interesting is a lot of these ideas IMO are not really atheistic. I’ve heard people describe their “atheist” views, and really they are pantheists, or even Platonists. But since everyone assumes being a theist means in a Christian-Jewish-Muslim sense, that is what they get labeled.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Because I am aware that scientific knowledge and discovery changes and that ‘facts’ also change. We can have a theory of X but my expectation is that the theory will eventually evolve, maybe radically, maybe not. That is why I can never take it as fact. And my experience is that many people don’t understand that and use science to confirm their assumptions which are essentially theological questions.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent I think this is a reasonable view.

But I guess my question would be - do you get in an airplane and trust it to take you across the ocean? Or what kind of use do you make of the fruits of other kinds of scientific thought?

If you are confident enough to use those things, why distrust the other kinds of ideas scientists come to using the same processes and techniques?
 
When I have been reading this thread I have been skipping the atheist arguments as they still install so much doubt in my mind 😦

Fellow catholics and christians, what in your mind makes all these great atheist scientists wrong?
 
You’re skipping over the posts from atheists or those representing the atheist view in an unbias way?
 
catholicm17 said:
When I have been reading this thread I have been skipping the atheist arguments as they still install so much doubt in my mind 😦

Fellow catholics and christians, what in your mind makes all these great atheist scientists wrong?
Click to expand...
Science cannot be used to disprove the existence of God. God cannot be put into a test tube.
 
Many people that I know who are atheists are essentially rationalists and believe the Universe operates only a consistent and empirical fashion, is within a closed system and generally have materialist view of reality. It’s not an unreasonable position to take given our current scientific understanding but is epistemologically restrictive in some senses.
 
Arkadin said:
You’re skipping over the posts from atheists or those representing the atheist view in an unbias way?
Click to expand...
I made this thread because i have been struggling with my faith because of morons like Dawkins. I am trying to strengthen it again.
 
catholicm17 said:
Fellow catholics and christians, what in your mind makes all these great atheist scientists wrong?
Click to expand...
This is the question many have. I’ve grappled with this years ago as someone that was very agnostic as well as a moral nihilist. What tipped the scales for faith can be boiled down to the following:
  • The historistcity of Jesus
  • The Big Bang theory of the Universe
  • Origin of life and reproduction biology issues
  • A Universe that appears to support an integrated complexity of life
  • Limits of science to make teleological inferences
 
There is no doubt Jesus existed, no doubt at all.

I have learned that there is 2 possibilities, he was either a crazy liar or the Son of God. Is this correct?
 
catholicm17 said:
There is no doubt Jesus existed, no doubt at all.

I have learned that there is 2 possibilities, he was either a crazy liar or the Son of God. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
I would say there are 3 possiblities. I believe He is the Son of God, but I would make a distinction between crazy and liar as two distinct choices. If someone sincerely believes what they are saying, but are incorrect, I wouldn't call them a liar.
 
catholicm17 said:
There is no doubt Jesus existed, no doubt at all.

I have learned that there is 2 possibilities, he was either a crazy liar or the Son of God. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
There are a number of variations to the argument and the possibilities are as follows:
  • Jesus was a liar
  • Jesus was unbalanced (insane)
  • Jesus was man made legend
  • Jesus was a “guru” taken out of context by disciples
All of these scenarios (and their permutations) has been demonstrated by many to be very unlikely or implausible.
 
catholicm17 said:
I think it is time for me to purchase The Case For Christ
Click to expand...
Once you are done with that book, I would also recommend The Historical Jesus by Craig Keener. It’s a weight tome but well worth the read.
 
Apart from faith, what other reasons do you have for believing he is the Son of God?

Thanks and God Bless
 
Bluegoat said:
In a way. I’m not an atheist, but I don’t think I need to characterize all atheists as fools for my own views to be reasonable.

The fact is, I find most people, religious or not, do not think much about metaphysics, or how we can know things, or what holds the physical universe together. Most people follow what they are taught, or what the dominant culture teaches, or what appeals to their emotions or temperament. Most people have ideas about these things that are mixed up or illogical.

I do think that scientific materialism is a bit dumb. But I wouldn’t call some of the world-views that many people would today call “atheist” as dumb, and people who were very smart (smarter than me) thought they were sensible or reasonable.

What I find interesting is a lot of these ideas IMO are not really atheistic. I’ve heard people describe their “atheist” views, and really they are pantheists, or even Platonists. But since everyone assumes being a theist means in a Christian-Jewish-Muslim sense, that is what they get labeled.
Click to expand...
lao_tzu said:
A failure to misrepresent falls well short of a defense.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I would like to apologize :sad_yes:
 
catholicm17 said:
Apart from faith, what other reasons do you have for believing he is the Son of God?

Thanks and God Bless
Click to expand...
The reasons for my “faith” is summed up in the historical testimonials and evidence found in the Gospels, the martyrdom of the Apostles, the fulfilling of the biblical OT prophecies and the fact that Jesus asserted that He was of the Son of God.
 
Bluegoat said:
To a certain extent I think this is a reasonable view.

But I guess my question would be - do you get in an airplane and trust it to take you across the ocean? Or what kind of use do you make of the fruits of other kinds of scientific thought?

If you are confident enough to use those things, why distrust the other kinds of ideas scientists come to using the same processes and techniques?
Click to expand...
But surely, just because something works (an airplane), it doesn’t mean that everyhting alse works too (some kind of machine that allows time travel or whatever). I genuinely don’t understand what you are trying to say. Because science proves/‘proves’ X, the it automatically proves A,B,C,D,…? Not logical at all.

And what does science have to do with the existence of God anyway? Theology and science are not even looking at the same questions. Some scientists are trying to use science to answer these theological questions but obviously they can’t. It doesn’t make sense to answer a ‘why’ question with a ‘how’ question. This is basic stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top