Scientific Atheism

[edwest2]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ –

Once again, the faithful are faced by those who say, We know too much, or We know enough. Parts of the Bible are false. Things it says happened did not literally happen. The Exodus never happened.

A photograph in Time magazine showed a man in Washington, D.C. carrying a sign that read: America! Get off your knees!

And who should we bow to now? The Richard Dawkins and Sam Harrises of the scientific community? Mr. Dawkins, who said, “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

An attempt is being made to appeal to the emotions in the UK. You are too smart to believe in things. Evidence is the gold standard. Listen to science. But science is performed by men and men are known to lie. No one is perfect.

On the sides of buses: “Man created God.” How do we, supposedly, know that? Why, our clever genes, of course. Wildly mutating and getting naturally selected. We accidentally became smarter in a universe that has no more need for human beings than viruses or bacteria. Our genes created god for us to help us survive.

Never forget the primary purpose of the Church: to tell the world the good news of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. All these men are asking you to do is throw that away.

God forbid,

Ed

 

[06convert]

Until they can tell me how everything came from nothing they lose.

 

[Rascalking]

Until they can tell me how everything came from nothing they lose.

Just that? Until they stop creating evil-stem cell research, human-animal embryo cross breeds, that sort of thing…and stop promoting the horrors of evoloution (and covering up ID, and the Darwin-Hitler connection) then they can have my attention.

 

[MaryJMagdalene]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ –

And who should we bow to now?

Ed

Why do you have to bow to anyone? Are you a slave of some kind to higher powers? Do you require someone whipping you and telling you how to live because you are psychologically incapable of setting your own boundaries and limits? I think I have an answer to this. Bow to no one and be your own human being.

 

[Bear_Claw]

edwest2:

And who should we bow to now?

Why, no one, of course.

Never forget the primary purpose of the Church: to tell the world the good news of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

All these men are doing is to get folks to think for themselves, and to start asking “How does the church know these things” That, essentially, is the question. From there, people will come to realize that none of these “teachings” are based on facts or is even provable at all. Why do you want to stake your whole life, and the way you live your whole life, your mindset, your thought patterns, your whole being, on unconfirmed hearsay?
That’s the question.

06convert:

Until they can tell me how everything came from nothing they lose.

It’s the age-old “god of the gaps” reasoning. If we can’t explain something right this instant, you inject god in there. It musta been god, right??

 

[VociMike]

Why, no one, of course.

All these men are doing is to get folks to think for themselves, and to start asking “How does the church know these things” That, essentially, is the question. From there, people will come to realize that none of these “teachings” are based on facts or is even provable at all. Why do you want to stake your whole life, and the way you live your whole life, your mindset, your thought patterns, your whole being, on unconfirmed hearsay?

So why do you? After all, your atheism, your belief that everything is accounted for in some fashion not involving God, is also a matter of faith, of belief in something not proven. In fact, you have much less evidence (if you have any at all) for your faith than Christians do for theirs.

It’s the age-old “god of the gaps” reasoning. If we can’t explain something right this instant, you inject god in there. It musta been god, right??

Not at all. The reason or cause or explanation for the existence of the universe cannot, obviously, be a natural reason or cause or explanation. In this way, the question is entirely different from any “god of the gaps” questions.

 

[VociMike]

A couple of interesting reads I found on John C Wright’s page:

johncwright.livejournal.com/252598.html

johncwright.livejournal.com/253366.html

johncwright.livejournal.com/250324.html

 

[Bear_Claw]

So why do you? After all, your atheism, your belief that everything is accounted for in some fashion not involving God, is also a matter of faith, of belief in something not proven. In fact, you have much less evidence (if you have any at all) for your faith than Christians do for theirs.

It’s actually the opposite. It’s not a matter of belief, it’s disbelief. Trying to tell me that it’s god without providing proof, fuels my disbelief in god. We look at evidence and research to slowly gain understanding of nature and the cosmos, but I disbelieve god because it’s not proven. I do not believe in anything, I increase knowledge through research, experiments, results an facts. I thought you would understand that.

Not at all. The reason or cause or explanation for the existence of the universe cannot, obviously, be a natural reason or cause or explanation.

Yeah, so y’all claim, but you don’t provide proof to back that up. It’s just a claim.
I don’t believe in anything until it’s been researched and proven, and as of yet, god has been researched (very thoroughly) but not proven.
Also, 06convert’s question about everything coming from nothing is also not accurate. We don’t know that. He/she is speaking under assumption. There is no info on what things were like before our time (Planck time) began. It could be a split from a previous universe, it could be a parallel dimension, it could be that the multiverse theory turns out to be correct, there are many working theories.

 

[edwest2]

Those who identify themselves as atheists here seem to ignore every time I mention the cloak with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Church has declared it was not painted by human hands. It’s been examined by experts. The cactus fibers it’s made from should have disintegrated years ago.

Peace,
Ed

 

[redhen]

Hi Ed, I just wanted to point out an interesting article (in the form of dialogue) that concerns the faith of atheists. catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0132.html

Some of the fictitious statements from the atheist professors could have come straight from the courses I took in college. As an agnostic I didn’t challenge their rhetoric, and I’m sorry now that I didn’t. Even for an unbeliever I could see that their logic was flawed, and was fueled by an agenda.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed, I just wanted to point out an interesting article (in the form of dialogue) that concerns the faith of atheists. catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0132.html

Some of the fictitious statements from the atheist professors could have come straight from the courses I took in college. As an agnostic I didn’t challenge their rhetoric, and I’m sorry now that I didn’t. Even for an unbeliever I could see that their logic was flawed, and was fueled by an agenda.

Thank you for that. I think we all need to look at what motivates us, inspires us and sustains us. And it all revolves around trust. When that trust is abused, we all need to look at someone to him we owe our trust. Believers and unbelievers can agree on many things but when it comes down to fundamental issues: Why am I the way I am? What should I be doing and what should I not be doing? This is where people disagree.

Education is valuable but we all make choices that apply only to us, and hopefully, we realize how our actions affect others. All of us have knowingly, and unknowingly, built our lives around certain things we trust are true. And by relying on others, we should begin to see how interdependent we are.

I know people who say they reject God, who are agnostic and those with great faith. In the end, we each choose.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Coles_Law]

Some think that the existence of God cannot be proved by empirical means. Consider this: the experiences most meaningful to human beings cannot be proved by empirical means, either. The visual manifestations of beauty, for example, in nature and in art. It is one thing to describe the human eye’s ability to react to certain wavelengths of electro-magnetic radiation, the transmission of the eye’s signals to the brain, and the brain’s electro-chemical reactions to these signals, but this type of empirical reduction does not capture beauty. If you try to explain beauty away by saying it doesn’t really exist simply because the only empirical knowledge we have does not demonstrate it, then you are cutting out a large part of your own humanity. Beauty is just as real as the existence of light waves, but it is another order of reality than material things like light waves.

Love, poetry, beauty, friendship, all that is truly human in fact, depend on matters that far surpass the empirical proof and methodology that we utilize for scientific truths. In other words, science and its methods only go so far, and science simply cannot reach the things that are at the center of our lives as humans.

Those who are only rational in empirical terms, who refuse to allow their complete humanity to act or be acted upon, are not usually described as human, but as mechanical, even cold. They are, actually, inhuman. Complete rationality in an empirical sense is exemplified by a computer. Very few people actually live their lives on the sole basis of empirical proof. Very few can act like computers, because they would have to cut away so much of their hearts to do so.

The rationality that informs the Church is not solely empirical, although the Catholic Church is alone among religions, in my view, in its respect for empirical truth as one aspect of the totality of truth. Another type of truth, the truths of the faith, once revealed by God, can be shown not to be inconsistent with reason. They are not irrational, just as philosophy is not irrational. They are simply not empirical.

Of course, the ultimate Truth about mankind and God is the person of Jesus Christ. By His very incarnation, He expressed the truth about who we are and who God is fully and completely. The propositions that our limited reason can form, capture part of His mystery; the rest has to be experienced.

Cole

 

[WillieWonka]

Just that? Until they stop creating evil-stem cell research, human-animal embryo cross breeds, that sort of thing…and stop promoting the horrors of evoloution (and covering up ID, and the Darwin-Hitler connection) then they can have my attention.

Darwin died in 1882. Hitler was born in 1889.

 

[VociMike]

It’s actually the opposite. It’s not a matter of belief, it’s disbelief. Trying to tell me that it’s god without providing proof, fuels my disbelief in god. We look at evidence and research to slowly gain understanding of nature and the cosmos, but I disbelieve god because it’s not proven. I do not believe in anything, I increase knowledge through research, experiments, results an facts. I thought you would understand that.

No, it is definitely a matter of belief. The universe exists, that is our starting point. Or, if you are really radical and deny that, then at least you agree that you exist, in some fashion. So there can only be one of two possible explanations/causes/reasons/origins for the acknowledged existence of the universe. Either a supernatural e/c/r/o or a natural e/c/r/o. You reject the supernatural e/c/r/o, which be default leaves you believing without any proof the natural e/c/r/o. And that faith-based belief, according to your own criteria, is inconsistent, illogical.

Yeah, so y’all claim, but you don’t provide proof to back that up. It’s just a claim.
I don’t believe in anything until it’s been researched and proven, and as of yet, god has been researched (very thoroughly) but not proven.
Also, 06convert’s question about everything coming from nothing is also not accurate. We don’t know that. He/she is speaking under assumption. There is no info on what things were like before our time (Planck time) began. It could be a split from a previous universe, it could be a parallel dimension, it could be that the multiverse theory turns out to be correct, there are many working theories.

So what? You are still left believing on faith, without proof that the existence of multiverses has a natural explanation/cause/origin/reason. You are violating your own stated standards for belief.

 

[Donald45]

Scientific Atheism

There’s no such thing. There’s only the atheism of some scientists.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Bear_Claw]

No, it is definitely a matter of belief.

snip.

You reject the supernatural e/c/r/o, which be default leaves you believing without any proof the natural e/c/r/o. And that faith-based belief, according to your own criteria, is inconsistent, illogical.

You misunderstand.
The default option does not automatically make me believe. It’s simply the most logical theory at this stage, but at this stage it’s still a theory. And yes, it is the most logical of the two…by far!

The reverse side, a.k.a. religious side of the creation debate uses faith and leaps from there to the conclusion that it’s some sort of objective truth, and try to pass it off as fact.

 

[VociMike]

You misunderstand.
The default option does not automatically make me believe. It’s simply the most logical theory at this stage, but at this stage it’s still a theory. And yes, it is the most logical of the two…by far!

There’s nothing “most logical” about it at all. If you disagree, please demonstrate. Otherwise you are just making another faith-based statement.

And there is no evidence for belief in multiverses, as opposed to the large amount of evidence for belief in Christianity (evidence which you of course reject, but you cannot in honesty say does not exist).

 

[Mersenne]

So why do you? After all, your atheism, your belief that everything is accounted for in some fashion not involving God, is also a matter of faith,

Nope, there’s tons of evidence. The basic idea of god contradicts all of science. Just start with the inverse squared law and work your way out from there. I mean, we all understand that Santa Clause can’t be real, he violates how we know the world works. So why then is it acceptable to make even more grandiose claims about an all powerful invisible space dad? And saying he’s “outside of science” isn’t an argument any more then simply declaring “Santa is magical.” That’s not an argument, that’s an evasion, an evasion that most people learn is nonsense by the time they’re 9. You can’t be “outside of science” Science is how existence functions, if you’re outside of science, you don’t exist. You can’t be “outside the universe” the universe is everything that exists, if you’re outside the universe, you don’t exist.

In fact, you have much less evidence (if you have any at all) for your faith than Christians do for theirs.

Nope, there’s tons of evidence, so much evidence you couldn’t even read it all in a lifetime. Versus a bunch of fiddling bronze age nobodies who simply declared themselves right, and a few people for some bizarre reason still believe them. You’re projecting, trying to pretend like others share all your faults so you don’t feel as bad. But that reveals one thing about you, deep down you know that your faith is a fault. And that’s not surprising, it’s not logic we would accept in any area of life. You wouldn’t try to prove a case in court by saying “uh…well…have faith?” and that nonsense is nonsense where ever you apply it, and YOU KNOW IT.

 

[Mersenne]

Those who identify themselves as atheists here seem to ignore every time I mention the cloak with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Church has declared it was not painted by human hands.

Well I’ll be, the church declared it? Amazing.

It’s been examined by experts. The cactus fibers it’s made from should have disintegrated years ago.

What experts? Where? Why haven’t they published their findings in a scientific journal to be re-reviewed by the community? Why haven’t they won a Nobel prize yet? I suppose it’s all a big coverup? The truth is hiding behind bigfoot and the easter bunny I bet?

 

[tonyrey]

I do not believe in anything, I increase knowledge through research, experiments, results an facts.

If you don’t believe in anything how can you increase your knowledge?! Isn’t research based on **belief **in the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe?