Answers for Atheists

a reply to: peter vlar

So you're saying that without your specific version of God, people are automatically immoral and bad people?
Interesting.

You sound like Chasm right now. The last person I would
expect to put words in my mouth. W/E vlar.

originally posted by: Barcs
But it's easy to deny science right?

I deny ALL false religions.

Science just so happens to be one of them.

I'll take non-fiction over science-fiction any day.

Your blind faith in the fundamentalist cult of 'Scientism' will only disappoint you in the end.

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

The High Priests perform their statistical rituals and the cultists genuflect reverently before their idol, Science. And it's all very impressive until the truth is discovered... spectator.org...

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Barcs
But it's easy to deny science right?

I deny ALL false religions.

Science just so happens to be one of them.

I'll take non-fiction over science-fiction any day.

Your blind faith in the fundamentalist cult of 'Scientism' will only disappoint you in the end.

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

The High Priests perform their statistical rituals and the cultists genuflect reverently before their idol, Science. And it's all very impressive until the truth is discovered... spectator.org...

Ignorance really is bliss with you, isn't it?

There's no "belief" when it comes to science. There's also no "scienceism".

Science is ALL about evidence. Thing that can be tested and replicated. So no "belief" is involved.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
theoretically...science would be just as easy to deny as a miracle...

It depends how you define miracle. Obviously the context here is divine intervention. To me, the only way to prove something like that would be to rule out all other possible explanations and tangibly demonstrate something that was impossible and not confirmation bias.

I actually have an example from my own life to share in the "spirit" of this thread. When my little brother was 4 months old he suddenly got really sick on Christmas eve. My parents took him to the hospital and the doctors said he had pneumonia and was not likely to pull through. He stayed there the night and then on Christmas morning all traces of the infection were gone and the doctor had no explanation for it.

My mom thought of it as a miracle and still insists to this day that it was. Now my mom was already a practicing Catholic at the time, but she went uber religious after that and sent all the kids to Catholic school, re-professed her faith and wedding vows in the church with my dad. It definitely changed the course of my life. Thanks to Catholic school, I ended up becoming atheist.

Now, was it really a miracle? I do not think it was. I think it's a clear case of confirmation bias.

First, it was back in the 80s and the medical technology wasn't anywhere near where it is today. Second, you have to account for human error. Could the doctor have misdiagnosed it? Could the paperwork have been accidentally taken from the wrong patient? Perhaps my brother just beat the odds. 5% chance to live, is still a chance to live, so in my eyes, beating the odds is not miraculous. It's about doing the impossible.

If we suddenly have a brand new sun tomorrow morning...well...you could either deny the "miracle" or deny the "science" that it's possible....

Or you try to investigate what happened and look at all the evidence, including exploring the rational explanations first. The problem is that most religious people will instantly go with god first without any investigation. What if the sun just appears to be "brand new", but on further investigation it turns out to be an optical illusion caused by a gas cloud or something similar. I have never seen the impossible happen, so I have no reason to believe in miracles. Admittedly, there is quite a bit we don't understand about the universe, but automatically assuming god did, because we may not have an immediate scientific explanation is downright lazy.

Sorry for the long reply. I was having entirely too much fun writing that.

a reply to: randyvs

Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth but reading what you have written, it was the impression I got. You also seem quite frustrated. I was just curious if that was the road this thread was heading down. If I'm incorrect,
Then I offer my sincere apologies. If you re-read what your wrote though I think you could see how one would get a similar impression as the one I got.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I deny ALL false religions.

LOL! Let me guess.. You think there's a true religion? You and everyone else who believes their favorite flavor of religion is true!
If you all have not noticed, this why all you fundies are at each others (and everyone else who does not agree with you) Throats! Such a sad unnecessary mess..

a reply to: Barcs

What I meant was...if there was a NEW sun...like our one now is gone and we suddenly have a different one....something truly "miraculous" that has no current scientific explanation....you'd either have to A) discount any related scientific theories and/or knowledge and call it a miracle or B) not call it a miracle but rather say that our current understanding of science is deeply flawed....so either A) deny science or B) deny miracles, both in this example would be equally acceptable IMO

Also, sorry to hear about catholic school...i wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemies...but good to hear your little brother made it through...nice story of what some might deem a "miracle", but not exactly the case I was trying to demonstrate.

A2D

a reply to: flyingfish

Touched a nerve have we?

Why shouldn't I think there's a true religion?

The obvious contradictions between them make it plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that someone is full of it.

But of course there is no "Science" or pal reviewed studies to back this up so I'm sure you will have to discard it all as nonsense.

a reply to: peter vlar

Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth but reading what you have written, it was the impression I got. You also seem quite frustrated. I was just curious if that was the road this thread was heading down. If I'm incorrect,
Then I offer my sincere apologies. If you re-read what your wrote though I think you could see how one would get a similar impression as the one I got.

I'm not frustrated and if you say you weren't puting words
in my mouth then that's good enough for me. Right here
right now.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Why shouldn't I think there's a true religion?

The obvious contradictions between them make it plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that someone is full of it.

I'd agree with you about that last part. Logically speaking, if all available theories are inconsistent with each other but all claim to be true while also claiming all others to be false then obviously someone is "full of it". Now, you can't have two or more truths that also contradict each other. That isn't possible logically. One or more of them must be false. However, there is nothing that says they all can't be false. In fact the probability that they are in fact all wrong when it comes to their claim of being the only truth is far greater than the probability that even one of them actually is the only truth.

Logically speaking the odds on them all being incorrect is much greater than only one of them being correct because of how many others you need to eliminate because of it. In other words, it's far more likely that they are all "full of it".

a reply to: mOjOm

Meh...it's not quite so easy though. I don't know any religion that definitively says "we're the one true religion, all others are false"...because the majority of religions use ancient texts for their base...and those texts don't have any such comment...

You might quote some verses here and there...like John 14:6 which says "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."....and I'd point out the obvious, that Jesus himself never mentions anything about a religion. It was more about the way of life and standard that Christ set...rather than the religious practices the jews were following...

It is apparent, from my understanding of quite a few diligent reads, that Christ's ministry was simply to reveal God the Father to us, in every way we are capable of understanding Him. He continually taught on the message of loving God and mankind. He did not teach DIVISION, which is what religion ultimately represents. You see, the disciples and apostles were looking for the Jewish Messiah and a King and conqueror. Jesus eventually told them that his "Kingdom" was within, but they really never fully grasped it. The inability to completely grasp the message lead to confusion and division....

Hosea 4:6 - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Ignorance causes confusion and division.

(This is not stated as fact, but only from my understanding of the texts.)

A2D

a reply to: Barcs

I'm not a religious person, but know a lot that are. They view that there is lots of evidence there is a God. Weather or not you choose to see or believe the evidence is the question.

That is the GW connection. You say there is evidence. Many say there is not. Some say there is evidence, but no proof.

Personnel I would say that there is a God, but as to which religion, if any, is right... So I lean towards God.

For GW I have looked at the evidence and lean towards the no GW side of the issue.

As for it being an issue of God or Science. I don't see them as mutually exclusive ideas. Just like I don't see Evolution and Creationism as mutually exclusive. Sure the Bible says God created the world in 6 days, but it also says a day could be a 1,000 years to God.

originally posted by: dismanrc
I'm not a religious person, but know a lot that are. They view that there is lots of evidence there is a God. Weather or not you choose to see or believe the evidence is the question.

It is not about me believing their evidence. It's about their evidence being subjective rather than objective. Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. You need objective evidence to prove things in this universe and there is absolutely none in favor of god/creator or any other deity.

That is the GW connection. You say there is evidence. Many say there is not. Some say there is evidence, but no proof.

Nope, climate change science is based on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere causing temperatures to rise. This is objectively proven. It's not about what people say, it's about what the science proves. The part that's up for debate in GW and CC is how much man contributes to global warming, not the science itself.

As for it being an issue of God or Science. I don't see them as mutually exclusive ideas. Just like I don't see Evolution and Creationism as mutually exclusive. Sure the Bible says God created the world in 6 days, but it also says a day could be a 1,000 years to God.

It also says a dude could live inside a whale for 3 days and that the entire human race sprang from one couple. Both are demonstrably wrong. I don't see them as mutually exclusive either, but in order for any religion or version of god to be correct it will have to agree with the science rather than blatantly conflict as most mythology does.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Wow that makes you so moral. You should thank God you have
the right to ask such a judgemental immoral question. But as an
atheist you don't have to have that morality.

Why can't an atheist thank God for this right? And why doesn't an atheist have the right to that morality?

Personally I believe God would love atheists too, and grant them the same rights of morals and questioning.

Sorry, I just think this is outrageous.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: dismanrc
I'm not a religious person, but know a lot that are. They view that there is lots of evidence there is a God. Weather or not you choose to see or believe the evidence is the question.

It is not about me believing their evidence. It's about their evidence being subjective rather than objective. Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. You need objective evidence to prove things in this universe and there is absolutely none in favor of god/creator or any other deity.

That is the GW connection. You say there is evidence. Many say there is not. Some say there is evidence, but no proof.

Nope, climate change science is based on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere causing temperatures to rise. This is objectively proven. It's not about what people say, it's about what the science proves. The part that's up for debate in GW and CC is how much man contributes to global warming, not the science itself.

As for it being an issue of God or Science. I don't see them as mutually exclusive ideas. Just like I don't see Evolution and Creationism as mutually exclusive. Sure the Bible says God created the world in 6 days, but it also says a day could be a 1,000 years to God.

It also says a dude could live inside a whale for 3 days and that the entire human race sprang from one couple. Both are demonstrably wrong. I don't see them as mutually exclusive either, but in order for any religion or version of god to be correct it will have to agree with the science rather than blatantly conflict as most mythology does.

Actually it doesn't say we came from one couple. If you read it it says Cain left and came back with a wife.

It also says it is the history of the Jewish people, not the history of the whole race.

Both statement would lead me to think that there were other people around.

People then to gloss over much in the Bible.

Of course you can always go with the idea of evolution. Think of the odds of all those random genetic accidents that would have to accure to change a glob of protomatter into a thinking human. Then of choose the same would have to happen on multiple organisms in order to have the required number of "humans' to breed the race. Unless of course you want to say that we all came from a very small stock of these accidents.


As for the CO2 issues of GW. Its all based on about a hundred years of data. Which would be much less then a .001% record of the earth. If you tried to make claims to a scientist on any other issue with that limited amount of data they would laugh at you. But sense it fits the Liberal agenda that fact is always tossed out. Show me reliable data for about 10-20 THOUSAND years and maybe we can talk. Does the Earth go though temp changes? Sure. Is CO2 a major part of it or just a byproduct of that change.

Solar energy emissions have been left almost completely out of the issue. You know that the energy output of the Sun has been tracked as declining over the past 20 years right? It a cycle, and as I said we don't even have complete data on on cycle.

originally posted by: dismanrc
Of course you can always go with the idea of evolution. Think of the odds of all those random genetic accidents that would have to accure to change a glob of protomatter into a thinking human. Then of choose the same would have to happen on multiple organisms in order to have the required number of "humans' to breed the race. Unless of course you want to say that we all came from a very small stock of these accidents.

Think of the odds? What is the origin of god? If you're going to say that he just always was there, the odds against that have to be astronomical. Plus evolution doesn't even come close to working the way you just described.

As for the CO2 issues of GW. Its all based on about a hundred years of data. Which would be much less then a .001% record of the earth.

Not true. We have 800,000 years of climate history from ice core data. But I suppose you'll probably just deny that flat out. Your issue seems to be that that you can't seem to separate the politics and propaganda from the science.

Show me reliable data for about 10-20 THOUSAND years and maybe we can talk. Does the Earth go though temp changes? Sure. Is CO2 a major part of it or just a byproduct of that change.

cdiac.ornl.gov...

Solar energy emissions have been left almost completely out of the issue. You know that the energy output of the Sun has been tracked as declining over the past 20 years right? It a cycle, and as I said we don't even have complete data on on cycle.

You criticize scientists above for having less than .001% of the data, yet you quote 20 years of solar emissions as your trump card? That is laughably hypocritical. It is pretty well known that the sun goes through 11 year cycles. This is the wrong thread for this, regardless. It's just kind of funny how creationists and CC deniers always fall in the same boat. The connection between CO2 content and raising temperatures has been proven by experiment.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Touched a nerve have we?

Uhm..No.
Perhaps if my avatar was a fluffy kitten the lol would have been a clue.

Why shouldn't I think there's a true religion?

Your free to believe any mythology that blows your hair back. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

The obvious contradictions between them make it plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that someone is full of it.

Everyone but you?

But of course there is no "Science" or pal reviewed studies to back this up so I'm sure you will have to discard it all as nonsense.

Pal reviewed? Are you aware you can falsify any real science you like? This may sound alien to you, but all you need is evidence!

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I don't know any religion that definitively says "we're the one true religion, all others are false"...

Really!???? You don't?

Wow. I've seen your last couple of threads - arguing semantics about atheism, agnosticism, belief, disbelief, lack of belief, etc.

Fine. All well and good. But if you actually don't know of any denomination of "Christians" that say their version is "The Truth" ----
well, you have a long, loooonnnnng way to go in your studies.
Have a great night, A2D

a reply to: dismanrc

wow just no.

no.

Please, while you're here, educate yourself.
Cheers.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
There's no "belief" when it comes to science. There's also no "scienceism". Science is ALL about evidence. Thing that can be tested and replicated. So no "belief" is involved.

The only thing being tested and replicated is gullibility.

Those who blindly believe whatever Science throws out are no different from any other fundamentalist cult.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses