Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Utopian
Firstly may i state that it is not my intention to offend anyone with this thread and if you find such philosophical discussions offensive i apologize.

The reason for creating this thread is to debate the seemingly closed mindedness of Atheism in relation to most other belief systems.


And that's where you lose.

"Most other belief systems," i.e. religions, are based on the idea that they are the ONLY ones who are right, and that all the others are wrong. THAT is closed-minded.

Even better - if you think that Jesus isn't the only way to heaven - that you can earn your way there - you are an enemy of God and an agent of Satan:

www.gotquestions.org...


Question: "Is Jesus the only way to Heaven?"

Answer: "I'm basically a good person, so I'll go to heaven." "OK, so I do some bad things, but I do more good things, so I'll go to heaven." "God won't send me to hell just because I don't live by the Bible. Times have changed!" "Only really bad people like child molesters and murderers go to hell."

These are all common rationalizations, but the truth is that they are all lies. Satan, the ruler of the world, plants these thoughts in our heads. He, and anyone who follows his ways, is an enemy of God (1Peter 5:8). Satan is a deceiver and often disguises himself as someone good (2 Corinthians 11:14), but he has control over all the minds that do not belong to God. "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

It is a lie to believe that God doesn't care about small sins or that hell is reserved for "bad people." All sin separates us from God, even a “little white lie.” Everyone has sinned, and no one is good enough to get to heaven on their own (Romans 3:23). Getting into heaven is not based on whether our good outweighs our bad; we will all lose out if that is the case. "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6). We can do nothing good to earn our way to heaven (Titus 3:5).

...

Jesus is the only way of salvation because He is the only One who can pay our sin penalty (Romans 6:23). No other religion teaches the depth or seriousness of sin and its consequences. No other religion offers the infinite payment of sin that only Jesus Christ could provide.


And this isn't just some "kooky" belief. This is the central tenet of Christianity.

Are some atheists closed-minded? Absolutely. But don't point out the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


While I have no evidence of it, I would wager a guess that not everyone "assumed" God was real and believed in that position. I'm sure there were atheists or agnostics back then as well.

And a widely-held belief doesn't make it fact or truth. Why should the non-believer have to prove X doesn't exist when all immediate evidence already lends itself to that fact.

It's the job of the believer to prove that such abstract, unobservable phenomena exists. Because otherwise, anyone can say anything tenuous and it's defacto "true" unless successfully disputed otherwise when regardless of position, there's no facts to use as evidence, either for or against.






posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PowerSlave
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Those who claim their god is just beyond our discoveries face the challenge of constantly and eternally moving the goalposts as human knowledge advances


Isn't this essentially what "science" does? Not to mention almost everything in life, even Darwins theory requires life to move its own goal posts, ie adaptation, survival.

When man/science makes a new discovery or "creates" a new theory, the goal posts must be moved to accomodate new knowledge.

Our sentience
Our need to know
Our need to know why and how
Our love our hate
Our incessant search of creation/origin
Our incessant need to explore the unknown from the depths of Earth and its oceans to the far reaches of the universe.
The perfection of physical life
The conscious/sub-conscious and un-tapped spiritual mind

These are the reasons I would never rule out an intelligent creator/god/designer/entity or whatever name you prefer.







Correct, all scientific theories "move the goalposts". This is done so by acquiring new discoveries and evidence. Metaphysical claims "move the goalposts" also because scientific knowledge encroaches on areas they formerly claimed. One moves the goalposts because of progression, the other by retreat.

Also, I have never ruled out the possiility of creators/gods/deities and said so in this very thread. I find it an unlikely claim though, and one that will require tangible, indisputable evidence that neither the claimants can seem to provide or science can seem to discover.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
What if God to a person isn't simply a belief and therefore doesn't need to be structured by a belief system. Beliefs, afterall, must be guarded like a jealous husband guards his wife.

Whereas being an atheist is not so much a belief in the non-existence of something but the acknowledgement of a pragmatic conception of life that accepts Euclidian life as a totality without mystery.

In the end we're all subject to the same laws...

From the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare

"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"


[edit on 18-5-2010 by AProphet1233]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Apology accepted even though I kinda knew it wasn't meant that way... just felt it that way but thanks for playing along with me

But anyway would you mind rechecking my previous post and give me you POV on that subject I presented in the edit? Im curious what your take on that is.

damn you're populair, wonder if you even have time to check it


[edit on 18-5-2010 by faceoff85]


Perhaps we should start another thread on specific religious topics. Or we could try some U2Us? I don't want to cause a thread derail



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So listen to the video. Then argue against the validity of the speakers thoughts, and since atheists generally require scientific proof for the existence of God, please provide scientific proof with your arguments against the speakers scientific thoughts for the existence of a creator.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


well at least you used a source that is solely based on teachings of humans and not the bible... I stopped reading after the part were it states people go to heaven... the bible does not say everyone who follows jesus go to heaven... just a select few... When showing a biblical teaching at least make sure the source actually got it right
there are actually 3 different distinctions made, not 2.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by faceoff85]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Lol. They cannot explain why the earth revolves around the sun. lol. Science cannot even explain the how of gravity.



Well, not yet. But that's the beauty of science over religious faith; empirical testing and data collecting in the search of truth.

Science can admit it's wrong, adjust itself (theories/hypotheses) accordingly and continue onwards looking for the truth. It allows for change and new evidence. It's about learning.

Religious faith is based strictly on belief - not evidence or facts.

Sure, science cannot explain everything - but it's at least trying to. While science isn't happy-clappy and feelgood like a religious faith might be, it is at least "real". And I prefer real over fantasy.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by Conclusion
 


While I have no evidence of it, I would wager a guess that not everyone "assumed" God was real and believed in that position. I'm sure there were atheists or agnostics back then as well.

And a widely-held belief doesn't make it fact or truth. Why should the non-believer have to prove X doesn't exist when all immediate evidence already lends itself to that fact.

It's the job of the believer to prove that such abstract, unobservable phenomena exists. Because otherwise, anyone can say anything tenuous and it's defacto "true" unless successfully disputed otherwise when regardless of position, there's no facts to use as evidence, either for or against.





Please provide any immediate evidence that a creator does not exist. Look around you. Everything is created. The car you drive is created. You were created. The air you breath was created from different molecules coming together. The immediate evidence proves that there is a creator.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


M-Theory seems to postulate that what you've stated is possible. That all possible configurations are possible. Anything you can think of is happening somewhere, right now.

I think I'm a bit open-minded, if not outright wishy-washy and indecisive, lol.

-----

This is why I'm most comfortable with a certain degree of existential-nihilism, among other things. I feel it is up to me to establish that the things I believe in are true.

-----

A true agnostic will suspend their belief of the nature of the universe until sufficient data is gathered. Some will never make a decision because it just seems too troublesome or maybe even arrogant to try and assert anything in this great complexity.

Some will conclude that they have enough data to make a decisive move. What is the qualifier of "enough data?" Until they feel the scientific method clicks with them, or until they believe Xenu truly did wage war against Space Ghost and Phantom Spaceman.




Basically, the decision lies within you. Others will try to make sense of it, but we all have different configurations and limits.

The scientific method is merely another belief system. A belief system based on corporeal elements. Laying out rules that make sense to those that subscribe to the scientific method. Pick one, don't pick one, or pick all. Whateva'.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]

[edit on 18-5-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Atheism's only explanation for everything is randomness.


That's the common misconception that's already been addressed in this thread. Atheism is strictly the lack of belief in dieties, nothing more. Neither atheism or science claims that "everything is randomness". It seems that both you and the OP operate on faulty assumptions. Perhaps you should do more research in the areas of atheism and science.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Conclusion
Atheism's only explanation for everything is randomness.


That's the common misconception that's already been addressed in this thread. Atheism is strictly the lack of belief in dieties, nothing more. Neither atheism or science claims that "everything is randomness". It seems that both you and the OP operate on faulty assumptions. Perhaps you should do more research in the areas of atheism and science.


I've already illustrated how Science, not Atheism, establishes a portrait of random occurrence.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme

Originally posted by Conclusion
Lol. They cannot explain why the earth revolves around the sun. lol. Science cannot even explain the how of gravity.



Well, not yet. But that's the beauty of science over religious faith; empirical testing and data collecting in the search of truth.

Science can admit it's wrong, adjust itself (theories/hypotheses) accordingly and continue onwards looking for the truth. It allows for change and new evidence. It's about learning.

Religious faith is based strictly on belief - not evidence or facts.

Sure, science cannot explain everything - but it's at least trying to. While science isn't happy-clappy and feelgood like a religious faith might be, it is at least "real". And I prefer real over fantasy.


You know I agree with you about science changing. It seems to change almost yearly. You see that is the thing. I do not view it as science vs religion. I love science. It explains HOW some things work and that is great. Science cannot admit it is wrong. Only the people who call themselves scientists can admit if they wrong. Sadly when it comes to archaeology that is not the case. You prefer real over fantasy? Me too. I know that I will not live long enough to know everything. Oh and scientific theories are also based upon belief.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

So where is your undeniable truth that a Creator does not exist?


One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those that claim invisible and/or absent entities exist.


WRONG


No I am afraid he is correct. Under the rules of logic a negative cannot be proven and does not have to be. If you believe in a creator it is up to you to prove it. He doesn't have to prove there isn't one. Have you ever taken a course in logic. This is like the first thing you learn. Look it up before you makes claims that he is wrong.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Conclusion
Atheism's only explanation for everything is randomness.


That's the common misconception that's already been addressed in this thread. Atheism is strictly the lack of belief in dieties, nothing more. Neither atheism or science claims that "everything is randomness". It seems that both you and the OP operate on faulty assumptions. Perhaps you should do more research in the areas of atheism and science.


Interesting. What is an atheist's view on how life began then?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by damwel

Originally posted by faceoff85

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

So where is your undeniable truth that a Creator does not exist?


One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those that claim invisible and/or absent entities exist.


WRONG


No I am afraid he is correct. Under the rules of logic a negative cannot be proven and does not have to be. If you believe in a creator it is up to you to prove it. He doesn't have to prove there isn't one. Have you ever taken a course in logic. This is like the first thing you learn. Look it up before you makes claims that he is wrong.


In any fact I believe that he cannot prove that there is not a creator. No one can. There is just an over whelming amount of evidence that something has to be created before it can exist.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Conclusion]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
[edit on 18-5-2010 by Organic97]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Well first off the belief of a creator was a common held truth through out the world until the accusation that a god didn't exist came into effect.


I don't think so.


The belief of a human-like creator came about when ancient man developed enough brain function to start wondering about it. Why are we here? From where did we come? The story developed as they looked to the skies and determined that something "out there in the heavens" must control the movement of the sun and the weather and must have created everything there is. It was a story, based on supposition and assumption, and told to their children. God was made in man's image.

Before that, it was Nature, and, IMO, that is the most accurate idea of what a creator is.

Man's First Gods



Man's first gods were the forces of nature. Terrifying and unpredictable, they were feared rather than revered by our ancestors. Yet while much of the world was in darkness, worshipping cruel incarnations of natural forces, a river valley in Africa held a people who followed a different path. They worshipped gods that were beautiful to behold, luminous beings that walked the earth, guiding the human race to Paradise. They had human forms but were much more powerful; yet like humans, they got angry, despaired, fought with one another, had children, and fell in love. They lived lives that were very much like those of the people who worshipped them, the ancient Egyptians.

They were gods to be feared yes, as all gods are, but they were also gods to be loved. What's more, the Egyptians enjoyed talking about the gods. Like the gods of the Greeks and Romans, the Egyptian gods seemed to be made for storytelling. There were tales to educate, tales to entertain, and tales with morals, and in those stories, the gods didn't seem so far away and unreachable. It was comforting to hear that the gods also wept for those they had lost, to hear about the gods laughing, to learn that the gods faced many of the same problems that the people did, albeit on a grander scale. In learning about the gods on such an intimate level, the Egyptians could better relate to the universe around them.


These stories eventually evolved into stories about ONE God. A supreme being that NO ONE could see or hear, but that controlled the Universe and eventually would reward us for good behavior and punish us for bad behavior. This became the most effective way to control a population and it stuck. In a couple thousand years, the God of modern day religion will be as obsolete and scoffed at as the Norse gods, Loki and Thor.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Conclusion
Atheism's only explanation for everything is randomness.


That's the common misconception that's already been addressed in this thread. Atheism is strictly the lack of belief in dieties, nothing more. Neither atheism or science claims that "everything is randomness". It seems that both you and the OP operate on faulty assumptions. Perhaps you should do more research in the areas of atheism and science.


Interesting. What is an atheist's view on how life began then?


By natural means.

The sciences are working towards the details.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
You know I agree with you about science changing. It seems to change almost yearly. You see that is the thing. I do not view it as science vs religion. I love science. It explains HOW some things work and that is great. Science cannot admit it is wrong. Only the people who call themselves scientists can admit if they wrong. Sadly when it comes to archaeology that is not the case. You prefer real over fantasy? Me too. I know that I will not live long enough to know everything. Oh and scientific theories are also based upon belief.


Ok, as for the honesty of people in reporting changes and conflicting facts about existing theories... sure - that is up in the air. And sure, scientific theories are based upon belief, but a belief in a tangeable, empircally testable idea. If the experiments lead the tester to the conclusion that belief A is invalid or wrong then they say yes, it's wrong. In a perfect world..


As for the previous notion of cars and air - when you say creator, are you speaking just in the basic idea of "something that creates" or are you referring to God as the creator?

Because in the former instance I will say of course, cars were created by people. And the componets of the car, like air, was created by various chemical and physical interactions between atoms and molecules, resulting in the materials used. The earth spins due to left of forces of when the planets and solar system were formed, etc.

I won't dispute that at all. But if you meant "creator" with a capital C - then I'd disagree.





new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join