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

ROFL!!!!

Now you can tell what a man's penis size is through the internet? Agh the magic of atheism is strong.

And you are still dodging the question. If you don;t like that Israelis are supposed to kill their enemies in battle, what exactly are they supposed to do?

Further, as your moral stances shift on a dime, and you believe man causes violence, why are you in here slamming just religion?

Because atheism is about the opposite of anything a Christian says isn't it? Its about putting other people down to make yourself feel better isn't it? It is about finding fault and not solutions isn't it?

Angry young man syndrom, most people grow out of it.

 

I believe you answered your own question.

My point being is that yes, I distrust nature, yes I distrust the product of nature, evolution. The bear has evolved stronger than me, the cougar has evolved faster than me, and the bee more poisonous than me. I have no reason to apply a sense of good will to this animals, therefore an inherent distrust. Hence the counter measures.

I should have clarified, the M&P45 is not for the bees, but the predatory animals. The Eipen is for the bees.

God is a product of the imaginenation, we are essentially talking about the same thing.

You can certainly latch onto that and do what you will with it, however you are missing the point. A belief in god does not negate a persons ability to view the deaths of innocents as wrong and unforgivable.

 

Nah, just voicing my objection to wishing for a sports car.

They are useless.

.... not kill those who are not bearing a spear obviously? It doesn't require much will power to understand that point.

While I enjoyed the rant, you are ignoring the obvious.

 

What does a core sample have to do with the Big Bang? Evolution?

 

No you aren't, you are just lashing out like a pentulant child because someone think you really do believe in God, you are just angry and want to deny it.

They didn;t, did they? They took the women and children, and the other options were to leave them defenseless and stariving in the desert or sell them into slavery to someone else.

Maybe if you knew something about the reality of war, you would not be to quick to judge. But you don't, you like to judge others. You like to insult other, and you clearly derive a preverse joy from your behavior.

Again, your anger issues are not the fault of someone else's faith - they are the result of your own faith issues.

I love it when kids tell me this, especially ones that have been show to be ommitting things to the point of brazen dishonesty.

Your anger keeps you from the truth, and you have no one to blame but you. Stop abusing others for your enjoyment.

 

Not much to do with the big bang, but the connections to evolution are obvious, one of them being the establishment of geological deep time over which evolution occured. And sometimes fossils are actually found in core samples.

 

I do not say so, as you well know.

 

I still have no idea what that had to do with the comments I made earlier - perhaps you could let Margot answer it?

Again, thanks for teh lesson, but I will remind you I am not a Creationist.

I have no idea where 'core samples' come into a discussion about atheists taking the oppoiste tact of anything a Christian says?

 

You just did above.

 

Fine...

People have been killed in the name of religion ever since religion existed, but atheism had absolutely nothing to do with the horrible things these atheists did (Stalin, Mao, etc). Now, we could argue about whether the religion itself is to blame or just the followers misusing it, but that is ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that their religions were used in justification of the horrible acts. No one has killed "in the name of" atheism.

And before someone tries to pull a strawman, no, I don't condone this type of behavior for any reason, and I'm not defending anyone. Only pointing out the flawed reasoning in trying to blame atheism or even tie it to atheism in some way.

I'm sure you've heard this before and just continue to ignore it. So yes, old tired nonsense.

The simple explanation is - you're putting the cart before the horse. In other words, you have it backward. We (life in general) are attuned to this planet/universe because this is the environment in which we evolved.

As for a detailed explanation, read this.

Now, before someone immediately dismisses this link because it a Facebook blog post, I'd like to point out that that is an ad hominem fallacy. I could have typed this all out myself or spent the time finding a big-name source, but first, it just wasn't worth that much of my time, and second, the arguments to disprove the anthropic principle are logic-based, thus this source is sufficient. And just for good measure, he does site some sources of his own at the bottom.

You're welcome to (attempt to) make an argument against the statements in the article, but attacking the source itself is illogical.

It's a shame I have to point out these types of things ahead of time, but knowing the "debate" tactics many of you employ, it was unfortunately necessary.

 

No.
Atheists go on and on about evolution because it's constantly under attack by people who don't understand what a theory is (as opposed to a guess).
Also it's really hard to talk about anything involving biology or the social sciences without talking about evolution.
For the record, it seems to be mostly Christians trumping up social darwinism which used to be the thing religious populists most feared would come from accepting evolution (despite the two theories not really being reelated).

I don't see too many atheists deny the Big Bang.
And isn't the Big Bang equally useful if the goal is bashing Christians?

Again... wouldn't this also be as good as evolution for bashing Christians?
I don't get how this helps your premise.

By the way, there are other theories, even if they don't have as much support, as well as great deviations within the major theories.
But "Intelligent Design" isn't even a theory. It's simply holes poked into evolution theory (refuted holes at that) and then an unbacked guess about God being necessary, with no testable hypothesis connected to it.

I don't get what you mean.
The Big Bang theory and entropy do not in any way serve the theist argument.
In fact, Stephen Hawking used the Big Bang theory to point out there was no need for a God.

 

fair enough. You did ask what ice cores have to do with evolution...

 

I did not assume you were a creationist. I explained what ice cores have to do with evolution.

 

An ice core will have little to do with evolution spanning eons. It might have a specific species impact, but beyond that ... its of limited utility.

Dawkins is right, the genes are the proof - you can track it back from that start. Ice cores?

 

This is such a perfect example of why you guys just don't get it.

Scientists are EXPECTED to oppose previous theories in favor of new, more accurate ones.

That's the very job description.

The fact that scientists can disagree and argue their opinions without insisting the other is going to Hell for thinking that is exactly what makes science so appealing to so many people.

You start off by saying, "I know nothing." Then you do research and learn some things. Then you form theories that fit with the things you learned to try to explain them.

It's always provisional and can always be overturned by new, more compelling evidence. THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE IS. So it would be a disaster if every scientist agreed wholeheartedly with all the current popular theories. That would be the DEATH of science.

OP, now that you know what science is, I bet you feel downright silly for posting this thread. But it's ok, I know your heart is in the right place. Get your head there because it's folks like you who give Christ the poor reputation He has nowadays. You are as harmful to Christianity as any atheist. A person need only be a LITTLE bit smarter than you to read this thread and declare Christianity the Religion of the Ignorant and decide they want none of it.

You are driving souls away from Christ when your duty as a Christian is supposed to be to bring them to Him.

 

Have you complied with your own version of what science is all about before you speak about religion? Remember what the most modern rule of science is: You cannot PROVE anything. So much for science. See here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/3132012-post1.html

 

I might be confused because it seems like you are arguing with me. But everything I said about science jives with that post in your link. Did I miss something?

 

Maybe we are arguing the same point, just using differing terminologies. Sorry about any wrong perception on my part.

 

No problem, I have a tendency to use run on sentences that sound fine in my head but may not make as much sense to the reader. It's all about the rhythm.

 

Well personally, I usually try to proof read what I have written before I hit that submit button. But, like yourself, I too get in a hurry once in a while.

 

lol Why the hell can't you admit that a deeply held position on a matter of significance can affect behavior? Don't you see this is a ridiculous attempt to wriggle away from blame?!

I'm sure many have heard this before, many times before, and as many find it unconvincing, not to mention tiresome.

I'm sorry but I have to say you misunderstood the website I linked to. The scientists on that site accept evolution.

quote: There are many other finely-tuned constants of nature besides the strengths of these forces. Consider the ratio of masses for protons and electrons, as a final example. The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron.6 Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life.7 But with regard to the development of life on Earth, it is sometimes claimed that natural selection would find a way for life to develop no matter what the circumstances. In this way, nature is sometimes said to tune itself. However, the fine-tuning of carbon is even responsible for nature’s ability to tune itself to any degree. As professor Alister McGrath has pointed out:

"[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself."8

LINK

lol

 

Atheism is of central importance to Communism. How else can we explain the horrendous persecution of religious folk by Communists? If atheism wasn't so central, an accommodation would have been reached.

Example of Communist persecution: Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture, being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled.

LINK

And here are some quotes from Marx, Lenin, and others:

“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” (Karl Marx)

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice.” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn, former communist, Nobel prize winner)

“Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism.” (attributed to Vladimir I. Lenin)

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” (V.I. Lenin)

The official journal of the Soviet Academy of Pedagogical Sciences published a government directive Atheistic Education in the School as a resource on how to separate God from human society. The opening paragraph is revealing: “The Soviet school, as an instrument for the Communist education of the rising generation, can, as a matter of principle, take up no other attitude towards religion than one of irreconcilable opposition; for Communist education has as its philosophical basis Marxism, and Marxism is irreconcilably hostile to religion.

‘Marxism is materialism,’ says V. I. Lenin; ‘as such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as the materialism of the Encyclopedaists of the eighteenth century or the materialism of Feuerbach.’

 

Excellent post Anansi.. FACTS... love it.

 

Thanks Incorporeal.