Do Atheists Like Science that Doesn't Suit their Agenda?

Atheists go on and on about evolution because it suits their agenda of bashing Christianity.

But do atheists like science that doesn't suit their agenda?

For example, I've seen atheists on this forum actually deny the Big Bang Theory, even though that is the accepted theory of how the universe began among astrophysicists.

And I've seen atheists on this forum deny the entropy theory that eventually the universe will collapse on itself and come to an end.

So do atheists like science only when it serves the agenda of atheism?

Do atheists deny science when it helps the theist argument?

What gives?

 

No, actually we will bash any faith that condones the death of innocents. The Christians are not the only target of criticism, simply that most prolific. If it were Muslims who were the majority, and that majority was raising hell about gay marriage, creationism in schools, etc, they would be the targets of criticism. There is not a vast conspiracy about Christians.

What agenda?

Citation? They rejected the Big Bang Theory in what context? What theory did they favor?

Citation? They rejected thermodynamics in what context? What theory did they favor?

What gives? Atheism is not a dogmatic belief systems with set rules and guidelines. The fact that a number of atheists reject x, y, or z is irrelevant. There is not a doctrine that dictates that a atheist accept the Big Bang or thermodynamics. What science helps the theist's argument? The only arguments I have seen are god of the gaps.

 

Atheists have murdered hunderds of scientists, not that the media would ever admit it.

quote: Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation. In 1941 Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize.

LINK

Atheist activist Bill Maher is another science-hater. He's even been given an award by a leading atheist organization despite his anti-science rants!

The 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award (a.k.a Bill Maher): Antivaccine lunatic and quackery supporter

A lot of atheists are tools of the media bosses, these atheists can't think for themselves. Many atheists reject Christianity because they don't want to bother to treat people decently, these atheists are unswayed by logical arguments for the existence of God. We shouldn't be surprised that many atheists are hostile to science.

 

Of all the Atheists on this forum can you name one who is hostile to science?

 

You cited the Soviet Union? Seriously? It was a state that essentially demanded worship. Much like religion.

As for Bill Mahr, irrelevant.

 

Then it can be stated that when you say "..actually we will bash any faith that condones the death of innocents.", to mean that you stand in opposition to (as opposed to having faith in) all governments of the world that is known today. All of those governments have within their individual history, marks against them with regard to 'killing innocents".

 

Get ready to condemn atheism. Atheist Communists have killed about 94 million in only 80 years.

The Black Book of Communism

And we can also talk about the wickedness of right wing atheists too. There are many from Mussolini to neocon Christopher Hitchens.

Many atheist sects are extremely dogmatic.

You haven't looked very hard.

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”?

 

Modern governments do not destroy entire cities for the actions of a few. Respectable government condemn human trafficking, killing homosexuals, and grant women equal rights.

So yes, I do stand in opposition of such actions on the part of anyone.

 

Or can we say like atheism, SINCE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. lol I would say most atheists worship. If not themselves then some dictator. Instead of following Jesus and his message of kindness and human dignity they follow Lenin or Stalin or Mussolini.

Or they are just superstitious.

Look Who's Irrational Now

You should admit that Maher is a leader of the "New Atheism". Dawkins' organization backs Maher. Can you acknowledge that Dawkins is a leader of the New Atheism?

 

Nagasaki, Hiroshima ring a bell within the halls of modern governments? Do the governments of the world (select countries) NOT have WMDs standing at the ready to destroy whole cities along with their innocent inhabitants? Do you not keep up with the news? Once those wmd's are launched, it would be the result of "the actions of a few".

Those same "respectable governments" also have in their possession wmd's. So much for their respectability ..... standing ready to annihilate entire populations of men, women, children, gays, straights, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics... you name it... when that button is pushed, it don't matter who is in that target area or what their individual status is. They will be vaporized if they are in the strike zone.

BTW: When has there been an example of Christians accomplishing such atrocious acts?

 

Yes it is. Let me spell it out for you in pictures.







In other words, you aren't going to debate the OP, you are just going to take pot shots at Christians wondering about your methodology?

Just remember, someone actually adhereing to scientific standards will actually defend their positition, not claim they are an oppressed minority.

Oh, I almost forgot!

 

Maybe because there is no evidence to support this, or ANY end of the universe scenario? Did you happen to think about hat?

And any 'end of the universe scenario' would simply be a hypothesis at best, not a theory. It really would be refreshing if theists would actually understand what a scientific theory is.

As for the specific entropy theory that eventually the universe will collapse on itself and come to an end, this is depended on the universe being a closed system. We have a LONG way to go before we can say that Universe is a closed system.

Evolution on the other has an abundance of evidence to support it. So much so, that you really have to be a brainwashed twit not to believe in Evolution.

Does this help. And before Mr Scramble and Mr Red Herring feel the need to respond to my post, don’t bother, you both are on my ignore list. I don't fell like playing stupid word games or argue with posters who have no flipping clue as to what atheism is.

 

Way to go Mr. Herring.

Any thing that anyone says about the end of the universe is just a hypthesis.

So what is the the Big Cruch of expansion until nothing are based on the amount of gavity, why it would be just as scientific to state that the universe is going to end when everything turns into peanut butter! Yeah!

And teh question is, why deny 'science' (which is exactly what you are doing), simply because it doesn;t suit you?

BTW - we know what atheism is slick, its only atheists who attempt to change the definition to suit .... insulting other people.

Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.

 

I'll bash any willfully ignorant.

You're trying to infer that questioning is the same as denial and that only uncovers the silly, yet sadly common, intention of your post, namely to accuse scientists of being just as bad as the religious are.

Pointing back at yourself in this way is rarely a good strategy.

 

LOLOLOL.. Science is not a spiritual teaching.. its not philosophy.. You seem to be trying to construct a problem where there is none.

 

No you won't. Atheists will ascribe to anything so long as its anti-Christian.

Those atheists who denied the things listed in the OP? Where was you condemnation, then or now, of the atheists who did it?

Its not about science, it about denial at any cost, a scorched earth intellectualism. Rationalization. All the things modern atheists preport to despise ... but use regularly.

 

There is not an atheist doctrine that requires the deaths of 94 million people.

This has been pointed out to you multiple times, however you simply refuse to concede to the obvious. You are referring to totalitarian governments, you are not going to find very many people, not even your lovely atheists, are going to be in favor of such. Plain and simple.

Attempt being intellectually honest for once.

 

I do look forward to your rants, they are so intellectually dead it makes me laugh.

 

This might actually mean something if I supported the notion of aiming nukes at cities,.

Which I don't, you have made an irrelevant point.

 

No you won't. Atheists will ascribe to anything so long as its anti-Christian.

Those atheists who denied the things listed in the OP? Where was you condemnation, then or now, of the atheists who did it?

Its not about science, it about denial at any cost, a scorched earth intellectualism. Rationalization. All the things modern atheists preport to despise ... but use regularly.

 

Is there a point in there?

As I state above, you atheists talk about the ignorance of others .... and, as you prove routinely, you then turn around and slaughter other people's faith through recrimination and, often, sheer stupidity.

The silence of your fellow atheists who detest ignorance is literally shattering.

Is the point clear?

 

Did you miss something in my opposition of pointing nuclear weapons at cities?

The point was rather obvious.

I imagine the silence is derived from the overall stupidity of the thread.

 

I don't have a problem with the Big Bang Theory, but I think that the writers kind of ran out of ideas after season 2. As the characters became less two-dimensional, the show became less funny.

 

I would love to see links to the posts where atheists supposedly denied the Big Bang Theory and the law of entropy. I've seen posts that you probably think were denials, but were actually suggestions that alternate theories exist and that our universe is not a closed system (therefore falling into some exceptions regarding entropy).

 

Why do you link atheism and science? There is no necessary connection.

As a genuine proponent of the scientific method as a means of reducing error, it behooves me to accept the findings of science, especially if those findings are overwhelming, regardless of whether I like those findings or not.

Your use of terms is confusing too. What possible "agenda" could there be in doubting the big bang? I certainly have no agenda in this respect. The big bang actually happened or it didn't. Whether it did or not is my only interest in the question.