The religion of Athiesm - utterly illogical - utterly evil

[abucs]

Me? The science is all out there to learn. You have to study physics to at least partially understand the origin of the universe. That of course is a painstaking process, high hurdles to take, years to spend - just believing in “something intelligent” having said “fiat bla” and there it was, is much simpler…

Well i have a degree in Science, a scientific career of 15 years and am back at uni now studying postgraduate.

So please feel free to start telling me your evidence …

I’d really like to know.

 

[DOShea]

Can you give me an example of someone figuring out that another person loves him without relying on any evidence at all?

Certainly. Christians believe God loves them, yet there is nothing that science could use to prove it.

Again, I am not aware of any way of knowing that doesn’t rely on evidence.

Well… unknowingly, perhaps, your statement that evidence is mandatory in order to know is exactly that. Can you prove that we can ONLY know the truth of something if we have evidence of it? I gave you the example of the black hole and the 19th century astronomer; he would conclude - falsely - that they do not exist, lacking any evidence of them. But you admit they DID exist. So we have evidence in this example that a system that only relies on evidence is fallible, that is, is prone to error. Therefore to say that a system that bases itself only on evidence is reliable when we can plainly see examples (evidence) that it is not reliable seems false to me.

Sure. Based on the evidence, it’s a reasonable inference – and therefore likely to be true – that our galaxy is a spiral.

Again, how else would we conclude what the shape of our galaxy is, if we do not rely on evidence?

My point is that indirect evidence serves just as useful in knowing something as direct evidence. You will not find in any astronomy textbook that “we think” our galaxy is a spiral; it’s taken as axiomatic that it is, though in truth we really don’t “know” that, it is only through reason, not evidence, that we make the conclusion.

It is this same reason that B could take cues from A concerning love; perhaps a smile, a look, or other behavior that might indicate an attraction, but equally might not. It is the accumulation of these similar behaviors that allow one to reason their way to a conclusion that A loves B.

As it applies to faith, the same system can be used. We have ancient writings that predict a Messiah will come, will be born in a specific city but will be known as one from a different province of Judah. In all, some 50 plus predictions of this event. Then we have Jesus, a historical figure who meets all of these predictions. The odds of Him doing all that and NOT being who those prophecies say he would be are staggering. Just like ours being the only half-spiral galaxy in the universe.

We have eyewitness accounts, multiple accounts, of the things He did that defy scientific explanation. Raising the dead? Making a man born with a deformed hand instantly heal right in front of a group of people who were still looking for that Messiah. A very public execution followed by appearances to hundreds of witnesses. Then, over the centuries, numerous acts that defy rational explanation - martyrs willingly dying gruesome deaths before giving up their belief; tens of thousands of miraculous cures; bodies dead for centuries with no sign of corruption; consecrated hosts that bleed real blood, one of which is still whole and the blood is fresh after 1,500 years.

None of these are direct evidence, but they are sufficient indirect evidence that they only lead to one reasonable conclusion. Thus it is more than just “a belief” to say God exists. There are ample indirect indicators that provide something more than a simple faith in something made up out of thin air.

Okay, there’s two things here: 1) whether something exists, and 2) whether it is justifiable to accept the claim that something exists.

What I’m concerned about is knowing the truth, rather than proving the truth conclusively. In other words, an effort to operate in truth IMO is better than an effort to stifle truth with limitations of conclusively proving it. The Ptolemaic system of orbital motion certainly provided a good explanation for retrograde planetary motion, yet it was completely false. Another example where dependance on provability served to veer one away from the truth. IF that can happen, and has many times, I’m not sure how valid or useful a system is that depends solely on that.

 

[AnAtheist]

Well i have a degree in Science, a scientific career of 15 years and am back at uni now studying postgraduate.

You have a degree in “Science”? That’s weird, one usually gets degrees in physics, chemistry, biology…

 

[abucs]

I’m not sure what part of the world you come from Antheist, but here we get science degrees and masters of science, with majors (or specialisations) in different disciplines of science.

So i feel confident in being able to follow your scientific explanation (with evidence) that you are basing your beliefs on.

Could you please let me know what that is ?

 

[prodigalson12]

Wrong on all 9 points, I’m afraid.

ROFL, is that all you can come up with in a response??? Personally, I would not bother, I try to back up an opinion with fact or at least discuss the theology, we both have the latter weather you want to admit it or not.

 

[prodigalson12]

I’m not sure what part of the world you come from Antheist, but here we get science degrees and masters of science, with majors (or specialisations) in different disciplines of science.

So i feel confident in being able to follow your scientific explanation (with evidence) that you are basing your beliefs on.

Could you please let me know what that is ?

Yes, all ears for abusc’s question, wasn’t sure why the original question had to be “dodged tactic” to avoid answering the original question unless you cannot back up your claims…

 

[AntiTheist]

Certainly. Christians believe God loves them, yet there is nothing that science could use to prove it.

Yeah, but the existence of a god is not something we all agree on, so you can’t use that as an example. Your original example was two people – give me an example of how one human can know that another human loves him without evidence.

I gave you the example of the black hole and the 19th century astronomer; he would conclude - falsely - that they do not exist, lacking any evidence of them. But you admit they DID exist. So we have evidence in this example that a system that only relies on evidence is fallible, that is, is prone to error.

Give me an example of how a person would discover the existence of black holes without evidence.

it is only through reason, not evidence, that we make the conclusion.

I agree that conclusions are made through reason, but reason needs to operate on evidence – you demonstrate this yourself when you talk about “indirect evidence” for your religion that reason draws upon.

So which is it? Is evidence not necessary to know something (in which case, we can ignore your “indirect evidence”)? Or is evidence necessary to know something (in which case, I will show you how your “indirect evidence” is actually no evidence at all)?

 

[prodigalson12]

Anti Theist, I want you to observe this thread, just please, observe it alone for a while, you will see what I mean along what the people you encounter say.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5899850#post5899850

 

[AnAtheist]

Yes, all ears for abusc’s question, wasn’t sure why the original question had to be “dodged tactic” to avoid answering the original question unless you cannot back up your claims…

What do you expect, that I lay out a curriculum in cosmology here in a forum with just a few sentences? That is ridiculous.
Whoever has a scientific education knows where to look for literature.

 

[Freeway4321]

These aren’t bad places to start a fine science edgejamacation:

Boom: What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr

Bip: *The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality *by Brian Greene

Bap: *Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries *by Neil deGrasse Tyson

img9.imageshack.us/img9/7346/darwinchange.gif img9.imageshack.us/img9/darwinchange.gif/1/w201.png

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Point 1: No. An atheist is “about” not having a belief in gods. Atheist believe in all kinds of things – family, friends, life, art, philosophy, enjoying nice sunny days, etc., etc. Atheists don’t “believe in nothing.” We have one less belief than theists do.

I wonder about this. A lot of atheists claim that being atheist simply means not believing in a god, that this is all there is to it. It does not influence their worldview, their moral choices, etc.
But I wonder if they can call themselves atheists. A theist believes that God is personal and immanent and therefore influences his worldview, moral choices, etc. The atheist, being anti-theist, thus believes that there is no personal and immanent God. That means that he has to base his worldview, moral choices etc. on a different source. But that implies that there is more to being atheist than simply having one belief less.

It seems to me that the position of simply having one less belief is more contrary to deism than theism, since deism is the position that God is not personal and immanent.
The atheist who defends his position this way should therefore call himself anti-deist (or adeist?) instead of atheist. Am I right?

 

[Nebogipfel]

ROFL, is that all you can come up with in a response??? Personally, I would not bother, I try to back up an opinion with fact or at least discuss the theology, we both have the latter weather you want to admit it or not.

I’m having trouble believing that you’re not having a joke here, but assuming that you sincerely mean what you write, well, Antithiest has already made most of the points that I would make.

The facts supporting your opinions in the opening post are conspicuous by their absence, and it’s such a hysterical not-even-wrong thrashing of a straw-man characture of “athiests” that it’s difficult to know where to start.

Please, go to the web sites of the British Humanist Association or National Secular Society and point out where they propose that “all people that have any kind of deformity, disease, or abnormality will be exterminated”, or that “there would be no need for the family unit, since we have no need to procreate through natural means, it’s too messy to them, too dangerous that a bond is actually formed between two human beings”.

Please, provide the references to the writings of Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett or Carl Sagan, etc, etc, etc, where they call for our society to be reduced to a race of mindless drones with no hope, no love, no compassion, no humanity what so ever, so that we should be reduced to being less then animals, for our existence would only be here to serve the state and the state alone at any and all costs.

And if you’re going to say, aha, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were athiests, then I advise you just sit down and think about exactly what you’re saying there. Perhaps you might like to drop into an athiest discussion forum and ask exactly how much support there is for the doctrines of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Go on. I dare you.

And as for this:

Science would be pushed back into the dark ages, since the limited models they base everything upon would never change because they are never challenged.

Good grief. Do you actually have any idea at all about what science is, and how it works? Science is all about challenging and overturning the existing consensus. If no scientific consensus was ever challenged, there would be no science.

Peace.

 

[prodigalson12]

I’m having trouble believing that you’re not having a joke here, but assuming that you sincerely mean what you write, well, Antithiest has already made most of the points that I would make.

The facts supporting your opinions in the opening post are conspicuous by their absence, and it’s such a hysterical not-even-wrong thrashing of a straw-man characture of “athiests” that it’s difficult to know where to start.

Please, go to the web sites of the British Humanist Association or National Secular Society and point out where they propose that “all people that have any kind of deformity, disease, or abnormality will be exterminated”, or that “there would be no need for the family unit, since we have no need to procreate through natural means, it’s too messy to them, too dangerous that a bond is actually formed between two human beings”.

Please, provide the references to the writings of Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett or Carl Sagan, etc, etc, etc, where they call for our society to be reduced to a race of mindless drones with no hope, no love, no compassion, no humanity what so ever, so that we should be reduced to being less then animals, for our existence would only be here to serve the state and the state alone at any and all costs.

And if you’re going to say, aha, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were athiests, then I advise you just sit down and think about exactly what you’re saying there. Perhaps you might like to drop into an athiest discussion forum and ask exactly how much support there is for the doctrines of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Go on. I dare you.

And as for this:

Good grief. Do you actually have any idea at all about what science is, and how it works? Science is all about challenging and overturning the existing consensus. If no scientific consensus was ever challenged, there would be no science.

Peace.

I can use the Hitler, Stalin, etc. as prime examples of what happens in the line of thinking and reason when God’s righteousness is ignored, replaced with mans. Those were left unchecked and look at the results that followed. It is natural to conclude, if they are left unchecked again, that will always be the results.

And with the science remark, again, another case of not addressing it and trying to side step the issue by turning it into questioning my understanding of science itself which has nothing to do with the point being made. When you atheists take God out of the equation, you are again limiting yourselves from any and all options that are possible within the field of science, essentially it’s like building a car with only part of the parts, you need the rest to complete it, no matter how many different ways you try to assemble it, those parts are required, therefor you reach as brick wall, shrug your shoulders and deem the process of building a car impossible, when we know full well it is not.

 

[AntiTheist]

Anti Theist, I want you to observe this thread, just please, observe it alone for a while, you will see what I mean along what the people you encounter say.

So you’re not going to respond to any of my points, I take it? Noted.

I can use the Hitler, Stalin, etc. as prime examples of what happens in the line of thinking and reason when God’s righteousness is ignored, replaced with mans.

I’m just curious what you make of peaceful European countries with high populations who are not religious (and who thus certainly “ignore God’s righteousness”) and what you make of the fact that atheists seem to be heavily under-represented in prison statistics. Because those two facts alone seem to make the argument you’re trying to advance here look very wrong.

LongJohnSilver:

I wonder about this. A lot of atheists claim that being atheist simply means not believing in a god, that this is all there is to it. It does not influence their worldview, their moral choices, etc.

But I wonder if they can call themselves atheists. A theist believes that God is personal and immanent and therefore influences his worldview, moral choices, etc. The atheist, being anti-theist, thus believes that there is no personal and immanent God. That means that he has to base his worldview, moral choices etc. on a different source. But that implies that there is more to being atheist than simply having one belief less.

Hmm? The word “atheist” literally means “without gods.” A person who is without the belief in gods is called an atheist. The word doesn’t tell you anything else about what the person bases his worldview or moral choices on.

 

[prodigalson12]

Point 1: No. An atheist is “about” not having a belief in gods. Atheist believe in all kinds of things – family, friends, life, art, philosophy, enjoying nice sunny days, etc., etc. Atheists don’t “believe in nothing.” We have one less belief than theists do.

You believe that man is essentially good, how so, do you know every single person on this earth? I bet you do not, you must take it on faith that he is good. The thing is, you are believing in everything but God, and without God, there is nothing, so you essentially believe in nothing…

Point 2: No. You will find that most atheists believe in things for which there is evidence. In matters where no evidence is available (where’d the stuff that preceded the Big Bang come from???), the honest atheist will respond, “I don’t know,” which is the correct answer.

But if they don’t know, they are taking this yet again in faith, that it came from somewhere they are not aware of, they assume it’s there only because of what they can observe, but they lack the whole equation yet insist all follow their position. What would happen if they found out, there is no way for it to come into being without it being created by God in the first place. From there, if God could create the matter/energy for the big bang, why not form the rest of the universe in tact, the same impossibility would be forced to be possible.

The thing is, we as believers have answers for it all that we should know about, why is it necessary to rediscover what we already know from the beginning?

What atheists don’t do is have “faith” – defined as belief without evidence (or based on very flimsy evidence, like a strong internal feeling).

You mistake emotional, worldly reactions for spiritual because you do not know what the spiritual means by experience, you cannot define something spiritual or unworldly from a worldly perspective and standard, the two just are not the same at all, it’s like taking a measuring tape with no marks on it to determine the size of an object.

The other definition of “faith” – confidence – atheists do have in things, but we often call it confidence to avoid confusion.

So you are confident with your lack of understanding, that I believe.

Point 3: Atheism is a position on a question, not a worldview or an all-encompassing philosophy. Each individual atheist is free to subscribe to the moral philosophy that he or she sees as most true. I personally – and I seem to be in the minority of atheists – am a moral nihilist. I don’t think that the terms “good” and “evil” are inherent to things, but labels we add to things that mean nothing more than “I like it” or “I don’t like it.”

So, if I like your car and steal it, I’m morally just fine with that line of reasoning.

Point 4: It’s almost too easy to cite countries with high populations of nonbelievers or nonreligious people and point out how they have less crime.

Back this up with verifiable stats and references, otherwise this is pure speculation.

But instead of doing that, I’ll point out that whether or not something leads to stuff you like has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not. The two are separate questions.

leads to stuff “I” like? I’m talking about human nature, not personal preferences. And you must detail how you think they are two seperate questions, again this is another dodge tactic.

Point 5: Perhaps a very few atheists do. I don’t, nor do I know any atheists who do.

You do not speak for all atheists then, and this is now a case of your personal opinion, not representative of any atheist crowd then, so your responses are rather mute.

Point 6: Being “open minded” doesn’t mean accepting every position you hear of. It means being open to evidence for positions. There’s no evidence that any gods exist. It’s not “limited” to not consider positions for which there is no evidence whatsoever (except for really bad evidence, like strong internal feelings).

You don’t accept the evidence given to you, it is because it doesn’t jive with your personal opinion, therefore, anything that is not with your opinion must be false…You are trying to use a telescope to analyze a microbe, wrong tools all together, of course you can’t get it.

 

[prodigalson12]

Point 7: Most of them probably have as little knowledge of your mythology as you have of the mythology of India. I haven’t met any who want you to consider them an “authority” on the subject (let alone the “ultimate authority” that you claim they do).

You assume too much, I have studied their religious text, not that I’m an expert on them, but I know enough to form an educated opinion of it, you however know next to nothing about my faith and it’s obvious due to your rejecting the evidence of God. I don’t need to know everything there is about my faith, it’s a journey, not a destination, you want to be at the destination before the journey and it doesn’t work that way.

Point 8: I can only speak for myself, but I come here because I find talking about this kind of stuff fun.

It’s annoying to me, but I figured I was fed up with you guys butting in on topics that are best reserved for those that have a common “educated” ground to discuss topics, not having to back track and teach children the absolute basics of the basics and put up with their tantrums when they still don’t get it. I guess you guys are slow learners or something, can’t imagine how hard you must struggle with other areas of your education.

Also, it can help when I’m thinking a subject through to have people pose counterarguments that I never would have thought of on my own.

And this forum is filled with loads of them, the same as with scripture, yet you insist upon not even giving it the time of day, rather closed minded, and prefer to debunk instead of learn. Can you imagine I’m at school and I object to everything the instructor is teaching us? You guys are doing the same thing.

Point 9: Well, I would prefer “mindful beasts.” We humans, all of us, certainly are animals – that’s a fact, not a question in dispute – but we have more advanced brain functions than our fellow animals. That’s why we can figure out what photosynthesis is, for example.

We have a human soul, something that no animal has, this is what clearly sets us apart from all of creation on this earth and this is where it’s said, man is created in the image of God.

It is also absolutely true that things that cannot be measured or analyzed in some way do not “exist” in any sense of the word “exist” that is any useful. The word “exist” – if it means anything at all – means to manifest in a way that exhibits properties that can be observed in some fashion. Things that don’t manifest in an observable way aren’t “things” that all – they don’t exist.

Explain time then, we can only measure linear time using our observations, we know it exists, but it’s still not something we can touch, feel, analyze in a laboratory, experiment upon, or any of the critical elements you require from proving the existence of God. We cannot make time change directions, we cannot make it speed up or slow down, we cannot control it, what so ever, just as with God.

Ok, there you go, rebut is made, you feel better now? Have you learned an iota from this? Probably not.

 

[abucs]

I wonder about this. A lot of atheists claim that being atheist simply means not believing in a god, that this is all there is to it. It does not influence their worldview, their moral choices, etc.
But I wonder if they can call themselves atheists. A theist believes that God is personal and immanent and therefore influences his worldview, moral choices, etc. The atheist, being anti-theist, thus believes that there is no personal and immanent God. That means that he has to base his worldview, moral choices etc. on a different source. But that implies that there is more to being atheist than simply having one belief less.

It seems to me that the position of simply having one less belief is more contrary to deism than theism, since deism is the position that God is not personal and immanent.
The atheist who defends his position this way should therefore call himself anti-deist (or adeist?) instead of atheist. Am I right?

I think this is quite true. Especially for a young atheist. I think the idea for a young atheist is that they are ‘set free’, ‘liberated’, undeluded’ ) etc etc. They believe that they have stopped believing in things that are probably silly anyway. But as the atheist gets older i think it is apparent that his/her world view is shaped by their atheism which then leads them to see the world from a completely different viewoint. This affects relationships, what is important in life, politics, the next generation, having kids etc - everything.

One of the things that is a consequence of this, is for many atheists to develop a knee jerk reaction to anything they think might be suggestive of a God.

I think that is understandable because as the atheist gets older he/she doesn’t want to be confronted with the idea that they have wasted their life. This knee jerk reaction i think is a learned response - bible / fiction, believers / gullible, religious history / barbaric and anti knowledge etc etc. And as time goes on, they really have to twist historical reality to keep this new belief system of dogmas straight in their heads.

They develop over time this set of ready made answers/dogmas and so they really don’t have to think about such things anymore. Many atheists i think end up repeating the above dogmas over and over with completed closed minds which is a very uninellectual place to be in IMHO.

I can understand a young atheist doing it, as they believe thay are asserting their own rational independence, no matter how narrow a focus they have. For an older atheist though, sometimes they really don’t have any choice but to continue on in the same mindset, being completely dismissive without thinking too much.

As they get older it seems a very boring, stale, pointless and closed world. Hence the absurd rantings of Dawkins, Hitchens etc.

 

[AntiTheist]

You believe that man is essentially good

I don’t. I don’t think “good” and “evil” have any meaning beyond “I like this” and “I don’t like this.”

The thing is, you are believing in everything but God, and without God, there is nothing, so you essentially believe in nothing…

I don’t believe in “everything but God” – I don’t believe in things for which there is no evidence. There’s no evidence of the HIndu gods, the Norse gods, your god, fairies, leprechauns, or pixies. I don’t believe in any of those things.

there is no way for it to come into being without it being created by God in the first place.

So you claim. Do you have any empirical evidence for the creation of the universe by a god?

So, if I like your car and steal it, I’m morally just fine with that line of reasoning.

No. “just fine” and “not just fine” are synonyms of “good” and “bad” – they don’t mean anything objective.

If you were to steal my car, you’d very likely be caught and arrested. I imagine that you’d be as bad at stealing cars as you are at forming coherent thoughts.

Back this up with verifiable stats and references, otherwise this is pure speculation.

Well, the statistics on atheist countries can be found here: adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html It cites the Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Sweden leads the race with over half their population atheist, agnostic, or other kind of nonbeliever in a god.

I ask you: if your assumptions about atheism are correct, why aren’t these countries rife with crime? Why aren’t they totalitarian dictatorships? The answer is obvious: your assumption that atheism leads to these things is just wrong.

We have a human soul, something that no animal has, this is what clearly sets us apart from all of creation on this earth and this is where it’s said, man is created in the image of God.

Evidence?

Abucs:

As they get older it seems a very boring, stale, pointless and closed world.

It’s somewhat sad that you can’t find the world interesting as it is, without having to imagine a divine buddy to make it more fun.

 

[prodigalson12]

I don’t. I don’t think “good” and “evil” have any meaning beyond “I like this” and “I don’t like this.”

I don’t believe in “everything but God” – I don’t believe in things for which there is no evidence. There’s no evidence of the HIndu gods, the Norse gods, your god, fairies, leprechauns, or pixies. I don’t believe in any of those things.

You ignore the evidence presented to you, why do you keep saying there is no evidence, there is, you just lack the faculties to recognize it.

So you claim. Do you have any empirical evidence for the creation of the universe by a god?

Yes, look in the mirror, recognize existence, reality, the fact we even exist in the first place, we really should not.

No. “just fine” and “not just fine” are synonyms of “good” and “bad” – they don’t mean anything objective.

If you were to steal my car, you’d very likely be caught and arrested. I imagine that you’d be as bad at stealing cars as you are at forming coherent thoughts.

Ouch, lol. I admit, I would be a poor car theif, not something I’m ashamed of. It’s my moral base that prevents me, the one from inside naturally backed up with the one written in the law, both biblical and secular.

Along my competency, me and a couple of buddies could easily take yours apart and reassemble it in your livingroom while you were away at work, lol. Thank the Lord we are on the right side.

Well, the statistics on atheist countries can be found here: adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html It cites the Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Sweden leads the race with over half their population atheist, agnostic, or other kind of nonbeliever in a god.

Those stats are based upon quotes unsupported polls based upon a “theory” and this is just a simple paper that happens to be posted to the web, agreeley.com/articles/hardcore.html

It looks all official, but when you break down the source, it’s only parroting two people’s opinion and formulation in 1991 of current census. This is a rather weak reference to form a complete opinion upon, now where is the scientific process going on in your mind with this tangent?

I ask you: if your assumptions about atheism are correct, why aren’t these countries rife with crime? Why aren’t they totalitarian dictatorships? The answer is obvious: your assumption that atheism leads to these things is just wrong.

Just another thing to show a tidbit of proof that science cannot explain and it’s as real, and testable as you can imagine, even in your own limited world, yet science failed at explaining it and the Church has not…

overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm

Also, I guess you might be misunderstanding me, I’m not bored with the world, I’m just becoming not of the world, and the two contrast each other. What is not of the world is so much more valued, so limitless in all areas, so much more worthwhile, it’s eternal, why would I want anything from the fininte world, at it’s absolute best, it would be a cheap knock off under even the most optimum of situations, strictly within it’s confines in comparison and even then, would be only for a short time, simply a whisper compared to the eternal we get to exist within.

 

[abucs]

Just pointing out that an atheist’s grasp of reality is so limited that often intellectual and emotional growth stops quite quickly, IMHO. Without intellectual and emotional growth the atheist has a boring existence.