Misconceptions About Atheism

[iamme]

I never said “shouldn’t”. The point I was making is that those who lack the ability probably lack the interest as well. Someone who never took a lesson in Latin probably doesn’t have any interest in joining the Latin club. Certainly, a school isn’t going to prevent someone from joining a club based on a lack of ability (well, colleges will, as my dashed golf legend dreams attest ), but, for example, if someone is a bad actor and joins the drama club, he probably won’t get a lead role, he might be a stage hand or a very small role with few lines. Likewise, a tone deaf person who really wants to join the glee club probably won’t get to be a soloist. I don’t think that a school prayer group (assuming it is a school organization like the others mentioned) is going to prevent an atheist from joining them, but the atheist will probably not have an interest in joining them.

And I am speaking of a group specifically for praying or Bible study, not that prayer is at the beginning of another group, like the drama club (though we could have another thread were I would argue that every school day and every club should begin with prayer).

This adamance against prayer in schools goes beyond formal groups, but even to individuals. In Maryland:

Amber Mangum was a frequent reader during lunch breaks at her Prince George’s County middle school, silently soaking up the adventures of Harry Potter and other tales in the spare minutes before afternoon classes. The habit was never viewed as a problem – not, a lawsuit alleges, until the book she was reading was the Bible.

A vice principal at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Laurel last month ordered Amber, then 12, to stop reading the Bible or face punishment, according to a lawsuit filed Friday by Amber’s mother. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, alleges that the vice principal’s actions violated the girl’s civil rights.

Note that she was not reading aloud for all to hear, but silently reading to herself.

i understand what youre saying about group prayer, but what i mean, is there are existing members of these groups who may not believe, or believe differently, and this group prayer would be alienating. if your job solely promoted hanukkah during the winter holidays, wouldnt you feel a mite bit excluded?

and as for the article you mentioned, thats abhorrent, as she was doing nothing other than reading it, and her civil rights were indeed violated, and if it hasnt already, hopefully a judge will smack that principal down.

Hospitals will make sure that you receive urgent necessary care, but abortion is not necessary, urgent, etc.

Also, you noted that those hospitals lacked the equipment. Catholic hospitals lack the equipment to murder babies, yet the pro-death crowd demand that they obtain that equipment.

Ru-486 is abortifacient. It induces an early abortion. That is why it is immoral. It kills an innocent baby (who, by the way is not guilty of rape, why should the newborn life be made to suffer the punishment of death!).

Play ball – I already said we need more Bishops who will take a stand against immoral and unjust laws and refuse to obey. They (as are we all) obliged to ignore and disobey such evil laws (which are not laws at all).

i really think you need to look up more info on ru486. it is NOT the abortion pill, it is a pill that stops the sperm from fertilizing the egg, and is only an option for 72 hours. it is the best solution for those of you against abortion caused by rape, as theres never a pregnancy to begin with, with these measures. and if you want to take a stand, that is fine, just be prepared to have your funding taken away. theres nothing wrong with catholic hospitals not offering these services, just as theres nothing wrong with the government not supporting their decisions with funding.

JMJ_coder:

Do you know how to Google?

im not making the argument here. it is up to YOU to prove to me what your argument is, just as it is up to YOU to provided the evidence. i didnt make an assertion, YOU did, and that means that YOU get to post the articles, and provide links to prove your point, im not going to do it for you. you gave me one link, that didnt go your way, then brought up another article i hadnt (and still havent) seen, and acted like it proved something.
think of it like this;
unicorns exist.
oh, want proof? go find it.

see what i mean?

 

[MegaTherion]

The idea of electrons revolving around atoms might work in a science class, but like the creation story in Genesis it is not literally true. It is designed to give students a conceptual idea of how (what we call) matter interacts.

That’s right – Newton’s model has been overturned now that we have more evidence. We change the models as our knowledge and understanding grow, as more evidence becomes available…that’s not faith. That is the opposite of faith.

We still do use those models in entry-level science classes in order to convey an understanding of the subject to laymen, but no one has “faith” that those models are accurate. I distinctly recall being told in elementary school that those diagrams of atoms were not literally true.

We have lots of evidence that there is a physical world, and we continually update our models as we discover more of this evidence. We have no evidence of any world beyond the physical.

Could you please explain what faith has anything to do with this?

JMJ_Coder:

No not all. But you must admit that either a good many or a very vocal minority are striving to remove God from public view (and ultimately every view) and will use force if necessary.

No, you are incorrect. There is a vocal minority of atheists fighting battles to keep church and state separate (to secure the liberty of both). I don’t see any evidence that anyone is fighting to “remove God from public view.” It’s quite legal for private citizens to discuss their god or gods in public, to hand out holy books on the street, and even to stand on a street corner and preach the word of their god or gods. No one is trying to take that away.

Edit: Please stop talking about abortion on this thread. It is off-topic.

 

[abucs]

Could you please explain what faith has anything to do with this?

You have a view that the beginnings of the physical world lie in a non being thing. That is a view and you use evidence to support that view. You have faith in this view.

Most atheists have a view of a mechanical universe. They have faith in that. You may not, because you appear to have considered the science. But most atheists have faith in a mechanical world.

Other atheists who have considered the science have faith in multi verses, or parallel universes, or string theory or a 11 dimension reality. They all look at the evidence and decide what makes most sense to them and then they have faith in that viewpoint.

Yes, if the evidence changes then so does the viewpoint and people are crossing over from Catholic to atheist and protestant etc and back again every which way. We all have faith in what we think makes the most sense. And we would all base that on evidence. And if the evidence changes then we all change our position. The atheist is not alone in this.

Just as in the science class we are told that electrons going around an atom is only a reference point, not the literary reality, so too in theology class people are told that about the genesis story. There is no difference. People at different times thought (and still think) one or the other (or both) are literally true and taught others as much.

 

[iamme]

You have a view that the beginnings of the physical world lie in a non being thing. That is a view and you use evidence to support that view. You have faith in this view.

Most atheists have a view of a mechanical universe. They have faith in that. You may not, because you appear to have considered the science. But most atheists have faith in a mechanical world.

Other atheists who have considered the science have faith in multi verses, or parallel universes, or string theory or a 11 dimension reality. They all look at the evidence and decide what makes most sense to them and then they have faith in that viewpoint.

Yes, if the evidence changes then so does the viewpoint and people are crossing over from Catholic to atheist and protestant etc and back again every which way. We all have faith in what we think makes the most sense. And we would all base that on evidence. And if the evidence changes then we all change our position. The atheist is not alone in this.

Just as in the science class we are told that electrons going around an atom is only a reference point, not the literary reality, so too in theology class people are told that about the genesis story. There is no difference. People at different times thought (and still think) one or the other (or both) are literally true and taught others as much.

youre misusing the word faith.
faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
youre slinging the word evidence around like you won the lottery…

 

[abucs]

Sure i’d only go in the lottery if i had faith i could win it.
The evidence for that faith is that people win it all the time.

I haven’t got proof that i will win it. If i had proof then it wouldn’t be faith.

Faith is the absence of proof, not the absence of evidence.

There is evidence for all sorts of things.

To go back to Newton where most atheists ideas from today come from, he thought that the evidence suggests there is a deity and wrote in his ground breaking work that launched the field of physics that he hoped it would convince men of a deity. That is certainly evidence. Today atheists use this evidence in the opposite direction for the arguement for ‘no God’.

I disagree with athesits on the interpretation of what this evidence means. I tend to agree with Newton, but it is really beyond question that the evidence (and much other evidence) is there.

 

[JMJ_coder]

i understand what youre saying about group prayer, but what i mean, is there are existing members of these groups who may not believe, or believe differently, and this group prayer would be alienating. if your job solely promoted hanukkah during the winter holidays, wouldnt you feel a mite bit excluded?

Did those students join the group knowing that they were a group who prayed and/or did Bible study and/or other religious activities? If so, why would they join if they didn’t and had no interest in such? If not, what would have been the impetus for the change?

As for the job, would I have not known going in what the job entailed? If I didn’t like the job description, I wouldn’t take the job.

i really think you need to look up more info on ru486. it is NOT the abortion pill, it is a pill that stops the sperm from fertilizing the egg, and is only an option for 72 hours. it is the best solution for those of you against abortion caused by rape, as theres never a pregnancy to begin with, with these measures.

From Planned Parenthood’s site (so you don’t think it’s a biased description – emphasis mine):

What Is the Abortion Pill?

The abortion pill is a medicine that ends an early pregnancy. In general, it can be used up to 63 days after the first day of a woman’s last period.

The name for "the abortion pill" is mifepristone. It was called RU-486 when it was being developed.

How Effective Is the Abortion Pill?

You can feel confident in knowing that medication abortion with the abortion pill is very effective. It works about 97 out of every 100 times. You’ll follow up with your health care provider after your abortion so you can be sure that it worked and that you are well.

Some of the medicines used in medication abortion may cause serious birth defects if the pregnancy continues. So, in the unlikely case that it doesn’t work, you will need to have an aspiration abortion to end the pregnancy.

As per the OP’s request, if you want to continue this, start a new thread.

it is the best solution for those of you against abortion caused by rape, as theres never a pregnancy to begin with, with these measures.

FYI, I as well as the Catholic Church is as much against contraception as abortion. Both are intrinsically evil and immoral.

and if you want to take a stand, that is fine, just be prepared to have your funding taken away. theres nothing wrong with catholic hospitals not offering these services, just as theres nothing wrong with the government not supporting their decisions with funding.

The government is wrong to give funding to murderers! I am disgusted at them that they would contemplate paying for abortions! Currently I take a stand by voting and petitioning my elected officials.

But, when it comes down to it, certain “laws” have been passed by this government that are objectively evil and must be disobeyed – no matter the consequences.

im not making the argument here. it is up to YOU to prove to me what your argument is, just as it is up to YOU to provided the evidence. i didnt make an assertion, YOU did, and that means that YOU get to post the articles, and provide links to prove your point, im not going to do it for you. you gave me one link, that didnt go your way, then brought up another article i hadnt (and still havent) seen, and acted like it proved something.
think of it like this;
unicorns exist.
oh, want proof? go find it.

see what i mean?

But, I wouldn’t expect you to provide every single proof available from every single source. But, from Ramblings’ Journal:

It’s a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams’ attorney, Terry Thompson.

It seems that some maybe viewed it as you claim that he was teaching religion, but he wasn’t. He was at most showing that the founding fathers were religious (no big secret there). And that is a very, very important concept to understand as it shaped the founding of our country and demonstrates why our revolution was so unique in history.

But you needn’t have gone any further than the original link I provided. If you scroll down, you’ll find the complete lawsuit filed by Williams. You claim that:

1. in that same quote, he admits to promoting christianity, which is wholly inappropriate and out of line for a HISTORY CLASS.

because the short article states: he “understands and admits that he is not permitted to ‘proselytize’ or seek to convert his students to Christian beliefs during instructional time.”

That is in the brief. It is number 52 (page 7) – but number 53 & 59 both assert:Mr. Williams does not attempt to proselytize students during instructional time.

 

[JMJ_coder]

No, you are incorrect. There is a vocal minority of atheists fighting battles to keep church and state separate (to secure the liberty of both). I don’t see any evidence that anyone is fighting to “remove God from public view.” It’s quite legal for private citizens to discuss their god or gods in public, to hand out holy books on the street, and even to stand on a street corner and preach the word of their god or gods. No one is trying to take that away.

“Atheist” is such a broad term, like “Protestant” that it is impossible to generalize about anything they believe or don’t believe in. The only thing that can be said is that they don’t believe in God – although many self-proclaimed atheists are more agnostic. And many who claim to be atheist are not those who truly believe there isn’t a God, but who care not to do His will. Many are angry with God and blame Him for a tragic loss or event. Many are downright pagan and would rather worship themselves than God. Many just are indifferent to just about anything.

But, I have met even here on these forums from time to time those who proclaim themselves as atheists and had such an animus, a hatred toward God and all things related. One such (admittedly extreme) example is Joseph Stalin. Sure, he also tried to exterminate his political and military rivals as well, but the full brunt of his rage was against Christians (mostly Orthodox). From his biographies it seems that this stemmed from his childhood and he became not so much an atheist as one who hated God for whatever happened to him in his childhood.

So, it’s likely not the majority, but some atheists will do anything to rid themselves of reference to God and Him who they reject.

 

[MegaTherion]

abucs:

You have a view that the beginnings of the physical world lie in a non being thing. That is a view and you use evidence to support that view. You have faith in this view.

Ok, clearly definitions are in order. I use the word “faith” only to mean belief without evidence. And I use “evidence” to mean independently confirmable, verifiable data.

I know that the beginnings of the world, as far back as we can trace, lie in physical matter. We know this because of evidence. No one disputes that at the moments after the Big Bang, there was matter and energy in the universe. I do not hold any dogmatic beliefs about anything before this – but unless I see evidence, I will not accept claims that anything non-physical preceded the Big Bang.

This is not faith.

You, on the other hand (and correct me if I’m wrong), believe that an eternal world of spirit preceded this one and that an incorporeal intelligence caused the Big Bang to occur. There is no evidence that a world of spirit exists or that a non-physical cause was the “cause” of the Big Bang (if it’s even possible to speak about causes before there was a universe).

That is faith.

The positions are as different as night and day. One rests on evidence, and the other engages in flights of fancy.

The comparison between the model of the atom and the Adam and Eve story does not work – because behind that model, we have an understanding of the atom (as imperfect as it might be) based on evidence. Behind the Adam and Eve story, there is not evidence for God; it’s a myth that might teach something about human nature, but that’s it.

But, I have met even here on these forums from time to time those who proclaim themselves as atheists and had such an animus, a hatred toward God and all things related. One such (admittedly extreme) example is Joseph Stalin.

Now you’re moving the goalposts. Originally, your claim was that " a good many or a very vocal minority [of atheists] are striving to remove God from public view (and ultimately every view) and will use force if necessary."

The present tense and the examples you had been giving in this thread led me to believe that you were claiming that a significant number of contemporary atheists in America are trying to “remove God from public view” with (legal) force. I did not think that you were merely claiming that some people hate religion.

Could you please provide some examples of contemporary atheists trying to “remove God from public view” beyond simply fighting to keep church and state separate? Any examples of atheists trying to stop you from proclaiming your god’s word on the street corner?

If you cannot produce any significant examples (or anything more than an anecdote or two involving an anti-religion nut), would you please consider conceding the point? Thanks.

 

[ncgolf]

Ok, clearly definitions are in order. I use the word “faith” only to mean belief without evidence. And I use “evidence” to mean independently confirmable, verifiable data.

Does this mean you indepently verify the complex calculations physicists use to explain their models. If not then you mean 2 or more scientists must agree … so I think you do have faith that those people have done their work correctly … so you can believe what they say.

I know that the beginnings of the world, as far back as we can trace, lie in physical matter. We know this because of evidence.

Is this proven or a suppostion by you?

No one disputes that at the moments after the Big Bang, there was matter and energy in the universe. I do not hold any dogmatic beliefs about anything before this – but unless I see evidence, I will not accept claims that anything non-physical preceded the Big Bang.

Jeez that is the whole question … any kindergardner can tell after a bang there is energy. Little bangs produce little bangs and big bangs produce big things. Don’t you ever wonder how so much stuff exists in the universe … millions of galaxys … the numbers are staggering to the mind. Is this question above your pay grade?

You, on the other hand (and correct me if I’m wrong), believe that an eternal world of spirit preceded this one and that an incorporeal intelligence caused the Big Bang to occur. There is no evidence that a world of spirit exists or that a non-physical cause was the “cause” of the Big Bang (if it’s even possible to speak about causes before there was a universe).

Maybe not the “evidence” you hold as the only possible explanations of things but it is reasonable to hold that view. A person is not being childish or engaging in flights of fancy to believe that God created this from nothing.

 

[VociMike]

I know that the beginnings of the world, as far back as we can trace, lie in physical matter. We know this because of evidence. No one disputes that at the moments after the Big Bang, there was matter and energy in the universe. I do not hold any dogmatic beliefs about anything before this – but unless I see evidence, I will not accept claims that anything non-physical preceded the Big Bang.

Does this mean that you will or will not accept claims that anything physical preceded the Big Bang?

BTW, as an atheist, who I presume believes that evolution accounts for every aspect of human nature, how can you explain how evolution would favor creatures who believe in things that do not exist, and who devote time, effort and resources to those make-believe things? In other words, how can evolution explain that the human species is now, and has always been, religious?

And I note with interest that, as far as we can tell, no other species believes in things that do not exist, and devotes time, effort and resources to those make-believe things. A fact which makes an evolution-only explanation all the more difficult.

(note: I am not arguing against evolution, only against the notion, which you as an atheist must believe, that evolution accounts for all of human nature)

 

[MegaTherion]

Does this mean you indepently verify the complex calculations physicists use to explain their models. If not then you mean 2 or more scientists must agree … so I think you do have faith that those people have done their work correctly … so you can believe what they say.

No, “independently verifiable” does not mean “personally verified by me.” It means that the evidence is capable of being verified by anyone. If you and I were so inclined, we could gather the data, train ourselves to examine it, examine it, do the calculations, and receive the same results.

Unfortunately, we do not have all the time in the world. One person cannot know everything. So what humans have done is we have built up a body of knowledge that is constantly being added to and refined by experts that have a system of peer review (to check each other).

It is because the peer review system is in place that it is valid to accept those findings that survive it. Such an acceptance is not an act of faith, as we have good reason to accept these findings that are based in evidence.

Don’t you ever wonder how so much stuff exists in the universe … millions of galaxys … the numbers are staggering to the mind. Is this question above your pay grade?

Of course I wonder – it’s natural for humans to wonder. I don’t claim to have answers, though, when there is not enough evidence.

VociMike:

Does this mean that you will or will not accept claims that anything physical preceded the Big Bang?

I don’t hold any particular beliefs about anything that existed before the Big Bang.

Given that there is evidence that physical matter and energy exist, I would consider a claim that matter preceded the Big Bang to have more weight than a claim that something non-physical preceded it.

It is possible that the universe was created by the Hindu gods, or the Norse gods, or the Zoroastrian gods, or Cthulhu, or perhaps even by your god – but there’s no evidence that any of those (or any of the other thousands of gods mankind has worshipped) exist or created the world. So I do not believe in any of them and don’t think that any of those claims has as much weight as claims that just involve the physical world.

In other words, how can evolution explain that the human species is now, and has always been, religious?

This is a great question. It’s been speculated that the “religious sense” is part of the inclination for pattern recognition that comes with our advanced intellect. In short, we look for order and explanations even when there are none – it’s a side effect of our brains being so powerful. Others have suggested that there was a survival advantage accorded to those who had a strong desire for “meaing.” Others have suggested that the “religious sense” was further cultivated by early human society, which probably benefitted greatly from having additional reasons to group together, think of one mind, and participate in social rites.
We’re social animals, after all, and inquisitive ones.

Your question doesn’t have one simple answer, but those are the broad strokes, I think. I recall there have been some books written on the subject.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t hold any particular beliefs about anything that existed before the Big Bang.

Given that there is evidence that physical matter and energy exist, I would consider a claim that matter preceded the Big Bang to have more weight than a claim that something non-physical preceded it.
As I said, the more cosmology learns, the more it paints into a corner those who want to explain this particular universe in terms of some infinity of other universes.

This is a great question. It’s been speculated that the “religious sense” is part of the inclination for pattern recognition that comes with our advanced intellect. In short, we look for order and explanations even when there are none – it’s a side effect of our brains being so powerful. Others have suggested that there was a survival advantage accorded to those who had a strong desire for “meaing.” Others have suggested that the “religious sense” was further cultivated by early human society, which probably benefitted greatly from having additional reasons to group together, think of one mind, and participate in social rites.
We’re social animals, after all, and inquisitive ones.

Your question doesn’t have one simple answer, but those are the broad strokes, I think. I recall there have been some books written on the subject.

Such speculation doesn’t carry much weight compared to the measurable disadvantages (from a purely mechanistic, animalistic viewpoint) of religion and faith. It doesn’t carry much weight given the enormous wealth “squandered” for something that doesn’t exist, and the enormous personal sacrifices. And it doesn’t carry much weight given the common (not universal, certainly) religious promotion of celibacy and monogamy.

But I sense that your “broad strokes” are just instinctive defenses of your worldview, and that they would not hold up to your own standards of evidence if you were not so predisposed to believe in that direction.

 

[MegaTherion]

As I said, the more cosmology learns, the more it paints into a corner those who want to explain this particular universe in terms of some infinity of other universes.

I don’t believe I ever said that I think there was an “infinity of other universes.”

My official position is that I don’t know. No one does.

Such speculation doesn’t carry much weight compared to the measurable disadvantages (from a purely mechanistic, animalistic viewpoint) of religion and faith.

What disadvantages do you mean?

It doesn’t carry much weight given the enormous wealth “squandered” for something that doesn’t exist, and the enormous personal sacrifices. And it doesn’t carry much weight given the common (not universal, certainly) religious promotion of celibacy and monogamy.

“Wealth” is an idea that we created, a part of our societies. Those who have wealth are often willing to give it up for something they believe to be a greater wealth – such as the blessings of a spirit or god.

Similarly, we are born with an impulse to empathy (like many other species of animals are) – if a “religious sense” strengthened that natural empathy, it would afford a survival advantage.

In addition, primitive societies also had all kinds of sexual taboos…it’s not surprising that they would incorporate supernatural beliefs into these taboos, or vice versa.

Again, I see nothing that cannot be very easily explained as a side-effect of our capacity for intelligence. Since we have evidence of our intelligence and our desire for pattern-recognition, that is the default position unless you have some other evidence.

What evidence is there that religious beliefs (such as those of primitive mankind) are true?

 

[abucs]

Ok, clearly definitions are in order. I use the word “faith” only to mean belief without evidence. And I use “evidence” to mean independently confirmable, verifiable data.

Well we have different definitions. I am very uncomfortable with your definitions of my ‘faith’ because i think it is being used to contrast it to your, let us say ‘views’ which you then go on to assert are evidence based.

I don’t see that there is a difference except to be honest that your physical only ‘view’ does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Our science says time and space BEGAN at the big bang. Our science also says that our universe properly understood is one TIME-SPACE continuum that began at the big bang.

This means that all space (and matter since matter is dependent on space) and time began at the big bang.

So our origins (and i would say sustainability because of quantum science) is dependant on something non physical, or non corporeal or if you want to - spiritual (that is, not material).

All of the current scientific investigations into origins and sustainability of reality have passed that rubicon - whether atheistic or theistic.

To say there is no evidence of something non material i think cannot be supported. Again to reiterate all of the current theories 11 dimensions, string theory, multiverses, and parallel worlds, and of cause creation - they all pre-suppose an existance outside our traditional 3 dimensional space (plus time) and hence immaterial in the sense that we cannot interact with it because it is beyond our senses.

What you say there is no evidence for (an immaterial reality) is pre-supposed by all the current theories.

This of cause was because of the success of quantum physics in the last century which in many peoples opinion clearly puts at question the stand alone physical universe that many people previously held. It does to such an extent that i think clearly invalidates the physical only view rather than supports it and the current explanations of reality clearly also reflect my view - again, whether atheistic or theistic.

I believe you views are inconsistant with modern science and hence any attempt to claim your view is supported by evidence is incorrect.

Hence, you have a faith. Not only that, but it is a faith that is in conflict with modern science.

 

[ncgolf]

No, “independently verifiable” does not mean “personally verified by me.” It means that the evidence is capable of being verified by anyone. If you and I were so inclined, we could gather the data, train ourselves to examine it, examine it, do the calculations, and receive the same results.

Unfortunately, we do not have all the time in the world. One person cannot know everything. So what humans have done is we have built up a body of knowledge that is constantly being added to and refined by experts that have a system of peer review (to check each other).

It is because the peer review system is in place that it is valid to accept those findings that survive it. Such an acceptance is not an act of faith, as we have good reason to accept these findings that are based in evidence.

No theists disagrees with this method. The staunches atheist and staunchest Christian use this method for confirming scientific study but to say this is the only way to understand our world is limiting. Philosophy fits into this category. From anything you have written I have not seen science give any substantial reason not to believe in God. You would have thought that with the advancement in science in the 20th century … science would have negated a theist’s point of view. I have not seen this happen. Science will neither prove nor disprove God … but science does give indications of the complexity of the physcial world … it seems as soon as 1 breakthrough is found … another is on the way. If science has proved anything to me is … it’s that the more we know … the less we know.

I see this as a never ending desire for us to understand where we are, where we are going and were did we come from. Understanding the universe is really trying to understand where did we come from. I cannot see any human effort succeeding enough to satisfy this desire fully. Science teases us by getting closer only to have the bar moved once we understand it.

I do not see the conflict between theism and science … a belief in God and the study of science. We, humans, as far as I can tell are the only ones who wonder these questions. The great apes, who share much in common from a DNA standpoint, do not seem to share this desire but they seem to know the best bamboo shoots to eat.

I wonder where these desires originate … is it genetic or is it infused from outside … something not given genetically.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Now you’re moving the goalposts. Originally, your claim was that " a good many or a very vocal minority [of atheists] are striving to remove God from public view (and ultimately every view) and will use force if necessary."

The present tense and the examples you had been giving in this thread led me to believe that you were claiming that a significant number of contemporary atheists in America are trying to “remove God from public view” with (legal) force. I did not think that you were merely claiming that some people hate religion.

Could you please provide some examples of contemporary atheists trying to “remove God from public view” beyond simply fighting to keep church and state separate? Any examples of atheists trying to stop you from proclaiming your god’s word on the street corner?

If you cannot produce any significant examples (or anything more than an anecdote or two involving an anti-religion nut), would you please consider conceding the point? Thanks.

Bill Maher is a contemporary “celebrity” that is bent on destroying Christianity. Dan Brown is another. Phillip Pullman is yet another. These are examples of those out in the spotlight that promote these ideas – at the extreme end of it.

But, I argue that the modern popular notion of “separation of Church and State” is the very removal of God from public view that I am describing. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned it to be so. Indeed, it was limited only to Congress for a good portion of early American history until the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to state and local governments as well. Several states, such as Connecticut and Massachusetts had official religions.

The main purpose of our Founding Fathers in the First Amendment was to prevent the State from forcing people to believe in a certain religion. This was the case in colonial times in England, where everyone had to be Anglican and denounce the Pope. But they never thought that God shouldn’t have a place in government or public life. Our Founding Fathers even held Sunday services in the Senate and to this day the Senate begins with prayer.

Jesus Christ has supreme sovereignty over all society and to deny Him this is a grave offense. The Church and the State have two different responsibilities – the Church is primarily responsible for the welfare of the soul and the State primarily for the temporal and material welfare of the citizen. But, where the State fails in their duty, the Church must do all to correct the State and/or aid in its duties. And as the welfare of the soul is more important than the welfare of the body, the Church has more authority than the State.

I lack the time and space here to outlay the reasons why this modern notion is false, but I’ll link you several documents that explain it well enough.

Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus
Graves De Communi Re
Sapientiae Christianae
E Supremi
Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio
Pacem In Terris

 

[Parabol]

In other words, Atheists aren’t advertising “There is probably no god” because they want to prevent people from talking about god. They want people to talk about it…to think about it…to rationally look at the evidence.

Well the funny thing about this advert in particular is that in concluded ‘now stop worrying and enjoy your life’ so it didn’t want to discuss anything at all =] Of course that is this particular example and I’m not criticising the point you made.

 

[cathopologist]

Hi MegaTherion, welcome to the forums. FYI, i was once an Atheist myself and i have read some of your responses to my fellow Catholics. I hope your discussions here will help you better understand Christianity and help compel the minds of other Atheists that not all Christians are ‘fantasizing hopefuls’.

What do you think of other Atheists like Richard Dawkins?

 

[MegaTherion]

Our science says time and space BEGAN at the big bang. Our science also says that our universe properly understood is one TIME-SPACE continuum that began at the big bang.

This means that all space (and matter since matter is dependent on space) and time began at the big bang.

So our origins (and i would say sustainability because of quantum science) is dependant on something non physical, or non corporeal or if you want to - spiritual (that is, not material).

The last paragraph does not follow from the rest of what you’ve written. We don’t have enough information to say that – for example, perhaps some natural law that we don’t know about caused the singularity to expand. That’s only one of many possibilities – we do not have enough information to say.

Those making claims have a burden of proof. I’m not claiming that the universe only has a physical origin; I don’t have enough information to say that, and, as such, I don’t have a particular belief about it. You, on the other hand, are making a claim that not only does something supernatural exist, but that it caused the universe.

Do you have any evidence (independently verifiable) for this?

What you say there is no evidence for (an immaterial reality) is pre-supposed by all the current theories.

Unfortunately, we are entering an area of conversation outside of my firm grasp – but, in the first place, you are citing developing areas of science that have not yet been proven with evidence; and in the second place, the little that I have read on string theory (for example) informs me that the hypothesis depends on the existence of certain physical – not non-physical – dimensions.

No one has demonstrated that there is a world of spirit. Certainly, there are non-physical things (like my thoughts), but these are tied to material reality (synapses in my brain, in the case of thoughts).

If anyone were to actually prove that there was a separate, non-material reality, it would be pretty big news. It’d be just about the biggest news ever, in fact…

ncgolf:

The staunches atheist and staunchest Christian use this method for confirming scientific study but to say this is the only way to understand our world is limiting. Philosophy fits into this category.

Well, science is the only way to learn about what exists in the world around us. Philosophy deals with something different entirely – how to find meaning in the things that exist around us. You shouldn’t look to science to provide a meaning or look to philosophy to demonstrate what exists.

JMJ_Coder:

These are examples of those out in the spotlight that promote these ideas – at the extreme end of it.

But, I argue that the modern popular notion of “separation of Church and State” is the very removal of God from public view that I am describing.

I’m trying to get this straight. So now your position is that there are some people (including some famous people) who are anti-religion; and that there are some people in favor of separating church and state to a degree that you personally consider extreme.

I have to say – I don’t think we disagree on this point.

The point that I was trying to make was that atheists are not interesting in removing God (your god or any other god) from the entire public sphere; I was talking about a much broader issue than whether teachers can make their students pray as a group. For the most part, atheists all want to defend your freedom to talk about your god in public (just like we want to defend our freedom to criticize your beliefs in public). As long as you’re not using tax money to talk about your god, that’s fine…stand on the street corner and preach away.

And while we’re at it, I don’t think that Bill Maher, Dan Brown, Phillip Pullman, or your local atheist activist would advocate trying to take away your rights to talk about your god in public.

cathopologist:

I hope your discussions here will help you better understand Christianity and help compel the minds of other Atheists that not all Christians are ‘fantasizing hopefuls’.

What do you think of other Atheists like Richard Dawkins?

I don’t actually think that all Christians are “fantasizing hopefuls” – I think that most Christians (like most religionists) have not really taken any time to think their position through. I think that of the few who have taken the time, even fewer have put significant effort into it. Of the very few who have, I disagree with their conclusion and would be happy to talk to them about it.

What do I think about atheists like Dawkins? I assume you mean “militant atheists”? I don’t find terms like that useful at all. Dawkins is an atheist, one who’s generated a lot of publicity for a rational view of the world. He seems like a nice man, and he’s a lot of fun to hear talk. I don’t think his arguments are always perfect, and there are a lot of times he gets side-tracked on topics that detract from his argument (for example, his easily-misunderstood comparison between the act of labeling a child and child abuse).

But I think he’s a smart man who is right on the main question (“do gods of any kind exist?”), and I think it’s important that people discuss the ideas that he’s made public.

 

[abucs]

Hi Megatherion,

thanks for your reply.

I would agree with Dawkins (the theoretical physicist) that if a set of thinking leads one (him) to the position of a singularity - that is, all of the matter of the universe contained in a dimensionless point beyond both time and the laws of physics, from which you cannot proceed - that is a good pointer that there is something terribly wrong about one’s (his) thinking or assumptions and that it is time to look at things differently.

I would suggest reading (if only to refute theists) up on a proof of Bells Theorem which strongly suggests reality is non local, hence non physical ;

and also reading up on the ‘observer effect’ which strongly suggests that not only is matter under the directon of physical laws but also under the direction of the very conscousness of an intelligible oberver.

This would also undermine the position that mind is only the accidental byproduct of physical matter and hence a secondary level of reality.

Of course the wave / particle duality of matter also undermines the physical only view of reality.

Also the EPR experiment, the Quantum zeno affect and also experiments which push ‘the uncertainty principle’ to its limits also undermine a physical only view of the universe.

For me at least.